Community columnist does her part to stem the epidemic of altruism afflicting our society

I was introduced to community columnist Barbara Fischer via her intriguing piece entitled "Misgivings about taking action for the 'common good,".

A provocative headline, to be sure, but her "misgivings" seem far more understandable once you read about her harrowing early life experiences as related in the column:

I was the first generation of my family born in the United States. In 1953, I was burned on 40% of my body, all third-degree. I spent three months in the hospital, endured many skin grafts and extreme pain, could no longer walk and weighed only 22 pounds at age 4.

I learned beauty is truly only skin deep, I developed empathy for the pain of others and, most important, I learned what it means to be different. Children were (and still are) cruel. The "in group" regularly laughed at how different I was.

My father lost both parents in concentration camps after he fled to the U.S. to raise money for their escape (he was too late). My first husband was born in a camp, and while he was "liberated," it was too late for his mother - she starved to death. I have never been able to escape the pain of this inexcusable butchering of human lives. I again realized how dangerous groups can be. After all, wasn't it for "the common good" to eliminate the Jews?

In 1960, our family moved to the South. For the first time, I witnessed people of color going to the back of the bus. I remember signs that read, "Colored Only." Our housekeeper ate at the table with us, so we were ridiculed by our neighbors. I was proud of my family members and their courage. I realized how difficult it is to stand up and do what is right in the face of severe societal and institutional pressure by groups.

In 1963, I was saddened by the assassination of President Kennedy. I considered him a hero because he was the first Catholic to be elected U.S. president. How could our country be so violent? I realized that many groups of Americans are not really tolerant of differences.

From 1965 to '68, many of my male friends from high school went to Vietnam. Some did not return; others came back addicted to drugs. Instead of looking forward to graduation, my focus was: How many more soldiers will die? And why is there no support for them?

I learned how tough it is to support an unpopular war when groups are opposed. Most of my classmates marched on campus; I felt sick to my stomach for being different from the group.

More misfortune followed. In the '80s, Ms. Fischer was "downsized," a single mother who had lost "not just a job but my career."

But she did not simply give up.

Twenty years later, I am thriving in a new career. I realized that life goes on, adversity can become opportunity and overcoming adversity is more about the individual than the group.

I sometimes still find myself different from the group.

Agreed: Subscribing to a "hive mind" or "group-think" mentality is incredibly harmful and intellectually lazy. Look out for people who implore you to "get with the program."

For that matter, beware of leaders who offer the false dichotomy "You're with us or against us."

But, with all due empathy for Ms. Fischer's childhood ordeal, let's not abandon the benefits of working for the common good, i.e. the community beyond our personal doorsteps.

Does Ms. Fischer assume that it was a nothing more than a massive wave of sudden individual self-realization that led to the Civil Rights Act and elimination of "Colored Only" signs and "separate but equal" education arrangements that she mentions?

Or, could it possibly be that the brave folks - black and white - who were arrested, molested, bloodied and killed while walking in civil rights marches or staging sit-ins at segregated lunch counters actually accomplished something enormous for the "common good" by sacrificing their individual personal safety in peaceful protest rather than indulging in self-gratifying violent revolt?

And, speaking of President Kennedy's assassination (by an individual, by the way!): As a conservative, doesn't Ms. Fischer have a fond word for Timothy McCarthy, the secret service agent who - in the name of the "common good" - stepped in front of President Reagan and stopped a bullet intended for him?

And I thought I was cynical ...

Today, Ms. Fischer ups the ante. In an effort to stem the tide of altruism and community-mindedness apparently threatening to destroy modern society, she asks, "What's so wrong with being selfish?"

Now, I'm not going to say she doesn't have a point ("rational selfishness" is just a fact of life, and she doesn't touch on the chit you grant a person - indulging their selfishness - when you allow them to do you a "favor"), but the question remains: why preach to fish that it's OK to be wet? I submit that the American public-at-large has clearly bought in to the concept of selfishness and requires no further coaching.

Always entertaining is the condescension certain conservatives are capable of encapsulating is a single sentence [emphasis below added by me]. 

Even when these individuals are shown superior avenues offering better prospects for the poor, they will stick to their course no matter how much destruction their activities create.

I applaud her idealogical confidence. Someday we'll come around to all this unnamed "superior" and "better" stuff, I guess.

To continue her theme, here are some suggested follow-up column ideas for Ms. Fischer:

"Using directionals while driving is for suckers."

"Face it; we all die alone."

"I've got mine. You get yours."

"You are only one vote. Stay home."

From today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

What's so wrong with being selfish?

By BARBARA FISCHER

Posted: Nov. 27, 2007

Most of us assume that selfishness is wrong and that service must be offered in a selfless manner. We live in a world that does not recognize the option of rational selfishness. We are taught from childhood that we must be either self-sacrificing or thoughtlessly "selfish."

I maintain that our perception of "selfish" is the problem. Contrary to popular opinion, all healthy individuals are selfish. Rational selfishness is the means of living both a moral and psychologically healthy life.

Selfishness does not mean self-destructive behavior. Choosing to pursue one's career choice is selfish; choosing to have children - or not to have children - is selfish. Insisting on freedom rather than living under a dictatorship is selfish. Even crossing the street in a manner to avoid an oncoming car is selfish yet responsible.

Morally, we all should act responsibly. And morally, we are responsible for our own existences, whether we behave responsibly or not. In the social sciences, an "enabler" is a person who inappropriately accepts responsibility for another's life and creates conditions allowing that other person to continue self-destructive actions without facing the full negative consequences of that behavior.

On every level, government is the biggest enabler of all time. Government should not bear the ultimate responsibility for the lives and fortunes of its citizens or create countless pieces of legislation designed to take care of "helpless poor people" from cradle to grave.

One need only look at the consequences of the Great Society created by President Johnson in the 1960s and '70s. Many of the policies enacted then have assisted in allowing up to three generations of Americans to know nothing other than welfare. Rather than decreasing the level of poverty, we have seen dramatic increases in childhood poverty, child abuse, crime, drug addiction and the breakdown of family.

The irony is that while many individuals see themselves as self-responsible, they do not think the "poor other guy" is capable of directing his own affairs according to his own best judgment and actions. Why are so many people committed to directing and controlling others' lives?

For some, it may be due to pragmatic reasons: maintaining power, prestige and/or position, which, in turn, demands that a substantial number of citizens not accept personal responsibility. If no such group of "helpless" souls existed, it would be difficult to justify these bureaucrats' jobs. Others may require a pool of people to feel superior or to feel good about themselves.

Others may be motivated by "moral" considerations. Even when these individuals are shown superior avenues offering better prospects for the poor, they will stick to their course no matter how much destruction their activities create. The moralists are dependent upon the suffering and pain of others for their very existence. They maintain that "selfless service" to others is their moral imperative and insist that those who disagree with their position are greedy, racist, selfish, uncaring, mean, exploitive, etc.

I maintain, however, that the moralist argument toward service demeans the dignity of those who evade personal responsibility as well as the dignity of those who stoop to pick it up.

Barbara Fischer of Port Washington is chair of business and economics at a local private university. Her e-mail address is  bfischer4@wi.rr.com

Comments

[Robert Powers]

Y'know, it's kinda cheap of her to parrot Ayn Rand's ideas without giving the woman a lick of credit.

Also, dumb. Rand's philosophy has great germs of truth and wisdom but is inhuman in its rigidity and extremism.

[John]

Good point, Robert.

It's almost as if every one of Ms. Fischer's columns should include a preface revealing her incredible childhood trauma; frankly, I can't imagine something of that magnitude (and its aftermath) being anything less than a transformative experience that continues to shape her "Randian" world-view.

[Josh Strupp]

"I developed empathy for the pain of others...."

I'm not so sure about that one.

[John]

Note that there has been no published reader reaction to the column.

Sad.

[John]

My mistake - here's an letter to the editor that ran a couple days back -

Society's saints are the selfless

Community columnist Barbara Fischer wrote in the Nov. 28 Journal Sentinel that "Contrary to popular opinion, all healthy individuals are selfish" ("What's so wrong with being selfish?"). I think she ought to find a better word: Webster's defines selfish as excessively focused on oneself.

She blames government for being an enabler, saying the consequences of the Great Society created in the 1960s has "assisted in allowing up to three generations of Americans to know nothing other than welfare." Welfare was here decades before the 1960s.

She forgets that the Great Society also allowed millions of students to go to college who couldn't have gone otherwise, brought millions out of poverty, allowed millions more to become homeowners. For every failure, there is a success story. We have improved our civilization because we care to be our brother's keeper. We will always have people who can't or won't take care of themselves because of physical or mental illness.

Those who are truly selfless are the saints in this society - those who volunteer at food pantries, shelters, hospitals and give of their time to those who need a friend the most.

It is time for Fischer to get out of her ivory tower and come down to see what's going on in the real world.

Judith Tutkowski
New Berlin