Like so many Americans, I am anxious to hear how President Obama is going to discuss our role in Libya in his address to the nation tonight. I applaud the step he took to prevent a slaughter of innocent people there. But, it’s not clear in my mind why Libya and not Syria, for example, or other countries in the region whose leaders will not hesitate to kill their own citizens to hold on to power.
What happens if the unrest in the Middle East spreads and citizens of Saudi Arabia rise up against their rulers? Do we intervene? And, if not, how do we decide? What is our policy? Is it based on strategic national interests, such as access to oil or the critical location of U.S. military bases in those countries? I think the President has to start addressing the situation from a broader perspective.
His task is made doubly difficult by the fact that we Americans are conflicted in own minds on how we should regard our role in the world. Are we the “go anywhere, pay any price” country described by President Kennedy or a more pragmatic country willing to venture forth only when we can afford it and it’s strictly in our national interest?
However stirring the call of JFK in 1961, we saw where that and President George W. Bush’s crusade for democracy in Iraq four decades later got us. Yet, our hearts are still tugged in that direction because this country has always stood as a beacon of freedom around the world and has gone to war time and time again to rid the world of dictators who would have stripped people of those freedoms.
And, because of that, we got ourselves in an untenable situation. In the aftermath of the Cold War where America emerged as the world’s only superpower, we stepped up and assumed that role. Meanwhile, other countries were more than willing to defer to America as “the world’s cop” who would come to their rescue if their liberty and freedoms were threatened and we built a military machine that enabled us to carry out that role. To the point that today America’s spending on military is greater than the next 14 countries combined.
Can we afford to continue that role while ignoring our nation’s vital future strength by reducing spending on education and research and ignoring decades-old repairs and replacements of our nation’s critical infrastructure, to cite just a few obvious examples? The current course is unsustainable, to use the favorite word in today’s political lexicon. That’s why I was heartened to see the President say to our partners in the U.N. that America was not going to take the lead in establishing a no-fly zone over Libya. While some saw it as dithering and indecisive, I saw it as pragmatic and far-sighted.
The President is caught between a rock and a hard place, but this is an opportunity for him to clarify our role in the world in the light of our obvious fiscal limitations and other competing national and international priorities. The partisan politics of this are daunting but I dearly hope he steps up and is willing to spend the political capital to sell such a policy and take the majority of Americans along with him.
Stay tuned.
Gerald E. Lavey
Monday, March 28, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Building a Better Boss
The headline, “The Quest to Build a Better Boss,” jumped off the front page of the Business section as I was flipping through the Sunday New York Times this past weekend. Even though retired and no longer having to deal with such issues, the leadership/manager/boss concept still piques my interest.
The Times’ article has to do with a project that Google launched in 2009 called Project Oxygen. As reporter Adam Bryant writes,” Its mission was to devise something far more important to the future of Google, Inc. than its next search algorithm or app.” It deals with “building better bosses.”
Later in 2009, Bryant reports, the project team came up with “Eight Habits of Highly Effective Google Managers.” A lot of déjà vu there, I know, but don’t hit the delete button yet. What I liked about Google’s approach, as reported by the Times, is that it is very simple and clear. Dead last in the hierarchy is “technical expertise.”
Heading the list, on the other hand, is “be a good coach,” followed by “empower your team and don’t micromanage,” “express interest in team members’ success and personal well-being,” “be a good communicator and listen to your team,” and so on. Technical expertise is important, but here is the context in which the Google team puts that role: “Roll up your sleeves and conduct work side by side with team, when needed (italics mine).” And, “understand the specific challenges of the work.”
Once, at an offsite for FAA executives, one of the speakers on the program was a Marine officer who was there to talk about leadership. He started off by saying he had distilled the essence of leadership down to one word, then paused while everyone was quietly wondering what he would say. He looked around the room and finally said, “Leadership is about love.” You could have heard the proverbial pin drop. This was not a long-haired guy wearing sandals and beads. He was a strong, experienced Marine who had been in combat and had led others into combat. When, he started talking on what love looks like in that context, many of the examples he cited were right in line with Google’s conclusions.
To use that old tired, trite, hackneyed line that grates on the nerves but occasionally serves a useful purpose: “It ain’t rocket science,” is it? Then, why is it that one doesn’t find more bosses like that? They’re clearly the exception. One very simple reason is that over time in many organizations, top people in the organization pick the managers reporting to them and they in turn pick those next in line, and this incestuous process goes on right down the line. A prime example is my own Catholic Church. John Paul II and the current Pope, Benedict XVI, have selected all the Cardinals in the College of Cardinals who will pick the successor to Benedict XVI. Think they’ll pick a reformist Pope like John XXIII? Hardly.
But, the Vatican is not unique. It happens to organizations, public and private, all over the world. And, sadly, many of these same organizations have a professed desire to change, but they keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result. And that, as we all know, is the definition of insanity.
With the “grin and bear it” generation retiring and dying out, the new generation of workers has a far different outlook on the workplace and bosses. And, once the economy recovers, and workforce fluidity returns, they won’t simply stick around with organizations that don’t treat them right. Despite all its technical expertise and orientation, Google seems to understand that.
So, if organizations want “to win the future,” which the United States is trying to do writ large, they need to do what Google is trying to do. They don’t need to do more studies and establish commissions, etc. They need to break the mold and start hiring leaders with more and better soft skills in their managerial tool box. In other words, managers who understand in their heart and at a gut level The Golden Rule – that employees want to be treated the same way we all want to be treated.
It ain’t rocket science, is it?
Gerald E. Lavey
The Times’ article has to do with a project that Google launched in 2009 called Project Oxygen. As reporter Adam Bryant writes,” Its mission was to devise something far more important to the future of Google, Inc. than its next search algorithm or app.” It deals with “building better bosses.”
Later in 2009, Bryant reports, the project team came up with “Eight Habits of Highly Effective Google Managers.” A lot of déjà vu there, I know, but don’t hit the delete button yet. What I liked about Google’s approach, as reported by the Times, is that it is very simple and clear. Dead last in the hierarchy is “technical expertise.”
Heading the list, on the other hand, is “be a good coach,” followed by “empower your team and don’t micromanage,” “express interest in team members’ success and personal well-being,” “be a good communicator and listen to your team,” and so on. Technical expertise is important, but here is the context in which the Google team puts that role: “Roll up your sleeves and conduct work side by side with team, when needed (italics mine).” And, “understand the specific challenges of the work.”
Once, at an offsite for FAA executives, one of the speakers on the program was a Marine officer who was there to talk about leadership. He started off by saying he had distilled the essence of leadership down to one word, then paused while everyone was quietly wondering what he would say. He looked around the room and finally said, “Leadership is about love.” You could have heard the proverbial pin drop. This was not a long-haired guy wearing sandals and beads. He was a strong, experienced Marine who had been in combat and had led others into combat. When, he started talking on what love looks like in that context, many of the examples he cited were right in line with Google’s conclusions.
To use that old tired, trite, hackneyed line that grates on the nerves but occasionally serves a useful purpose: “It ain’t rocket science,” is it? Then, why is it that one doesn’t find more bosses like that? They’re clearly the exception. One very simple reason is that over time in many organizations, top people in the organization pick the managers reporting to them and they in turn pick those next in line, and this incestuous process goes on right down the line. A prime example is my own Catholic Church. John Paul II and the current Pope, Benedict XVI, have selected all the Cardinals in the College of Cardinals who will pick the successor to Benedict XVI. Think they’ll pick a reformist Pope like John XXIII? Hardly.
But, the Vatican is not unique. It happens to organizations, public and private, all over the world. And, sadly, many of these same organizations have a professed desire to change, but they keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result. And that, as we all know, is the definition of insanity.
With the “grin and bear it” generation retiring and dying out, the new generation of workers has a far different outlook on the workplace and bosses. And, once the economy recovers, and workforce fluidity returns, they won’t simply stick around with organizations that don’t treat them right. Despite all its technical expertise and orientation, Google seems to understand that.
So, if organizations want “to win the future,” which the United States is trying to do writ large, they need to do what Google is trying to do. They don’t need to do more studies and establish commissions, etc. They need to break the mold and start hiring leaders with more and better soft skills in their managerial tool box. In other words, managers who understand in their heart and at a gut level The Golden Rule – that employees want to be treated the same way we all want to be treated.
It ain’t rocket science, is it?
Gerald E. Lavey
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
A Dissenting View on Public Unions
Among many others, an anonymous former colleague took exception to my recent posting ("All Politics are Local -- and Personal") on the battle between some state governors and public unions. This comment is particularly articulate, cogent, and reasoned. It deserves wider attention and consideration. – Gerald E. Lavey
"Jerry--
"I appreciate your efforts to look at this important public policy debate on a balanced basis, but I urge you to refresh your (our memories) of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO). There the Secretary and the Administrator engaged PATCO President Bob Poli and his buddies in a sincere, arduous, lengthy negotiations. As I recall the bidding, those representatives of management put on the table a proposed increase of such historic proportions that they admitted that special legislation would be needed to deliver.
"PATCO rejected that historically generous offer in short shrift with the notation that the dollars were inadequate. Bob Poli called an illegal strike (several of his key players were convicted of the relevant felony). WHY-- because unlike the private sector, he knew (actually "bet") that he could take his "case" to the Congress. The process for public employees, according to the Bible of Poli made the bargaining process irrelevant.
"History showed that Bob was a bad bettor and the Reagan Administration was more able to manage the ATC than the PATCO cronies anticipated.
"This tale was recently repeated — different actors, same script. NATCA engaged in what must be called scorched earth tactics — casting egregious safety aspersions, attacking on a vituperative personal basis the Administrator and her staff, and placing media spots designed to terrify the average flyer. They played their ugly string out again, basically again dismissed the Administrator’s office and again (this time with statutory authority) went to the Congress to be their real negotiating party. Once again, the union bet lost and the contract was affirmed by Congress.
"Game over? Not hardly. NATCA has tried to hold up the FAA Reauthorization bill in an effort to reverse their loss.
"What’s the point of these long recitations—THAT PUBLIC UNIONS DO NOT FUNCTION LIKE PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS. Yes, the idea of government employees being represented by professional union representatives sounds nice. But in practice (repeatedly, i.e. more than the cited examples), the statute that allows a union basically destroys the relationship between the public civil servant and her/his manager. The lesson of “we do not have to honor the negotiating process” translates to “if we do not agree with a manager’s action, let’s grieve it.”
"As you well remember the federal government (thank you OPM then) can devise processes with timelines approximating infinity. Public unions contribute to stagnation of important work. Your old office and mine now both have titular managers and shop bosses. The grinding of the FAA’s work makes a grist mill on our own Rock Creek appear to be working at warp speed.
"Sorry, Jerry, while we worked together well back in the 80’s, we have very differing views on this issue."
Anonymous
March 11, 2011 5:07 PM
"Jerry--
"I appreciate your efforts to look at this important public policy debate on a balanced basis, but I urge you to refresh your (our memories) of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO). There the Secretary and the Administrator engaged PATCO President Bob Poli and his buddies in a sincere, arduous, lengthy negotiations. As I recall the bidding, those representatives of management put on the table a proposed increase of such historic proportions that they admitted that special legislation would be needed to deliver.
"PATCO rejected that historically generous offer in short shrift with the notation that the dollars were inadequate. Bob Poli called an illegal strike (several of his key players were convicted of the relevant felony). WHY-- because unlike the private sector, he knew (actually "bet") that he could take his "case" to the Congress. The process for public employees, according to the Bible of Poli made the bargaining process irrelevant.
"History showed that Bob was a bad bettor and the Reagan Administration was more able to manage the ATC than the PATCO cronies anticipated.
"This tale was recently repeated — different actors, same script. NATCA engaged in what must be called scorched earth tactics — casting egregious safety aspersions, attacking on a vituperative personal basis the Administrator and her staff, and placing media spots designed to terrify the average flyer. They played their ugly string out again, basically again dismissed the Administrator’s office and again (this time with statutory authority) went to the Congress to be their real negotiating party. Once again, the union bet lost and the contract was affirmed by Congress.
"Game over? Not hardly. NATCA has tried to hold up the FAA Reauthorization bill in an effort to reverse their loss.
"What’s the point of these long recitations—THAT PUBLIC UNIONS DO NOT FUNCTION LIKE PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS. Yes, the idea of government employees being represented by professional union representatives sounds nice. But in practice (repeatedly, i.e. more than the cited examples), the statute that allows a union basically destroys the relationship between the public civil servant and her/his manager. The lesson of “we do not have to honor the negotiating process” translates to “if we do not agree with a manager’s action, let’s grieve it.”
"As you well remember the federal government (thank you OPM then) can devise processes with timelines approximating infinity. Public unions contribute to stagnation of important work. Your old office and mine now both have titular managers and shop bosses. The grinding of the FAA’s work makes a grist mill on our own Rock Creek appear to be working at warp speed.
"Sorry, Jerry, while we worked together well back in the 80’s, we have very differing views on this issue."
Anonymous
March 11, 2011 5:07 PM
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
The Know-Nothing Party Redux
I don’t know about you, but I’m uncomfortable — make that outraged — with a Congressman holding a hearing on Muslim extremism in America who’s on record as saying, “there are too many mosques in America.”
In case you missed it, that’s exactly what Rep. Peter King of New York, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a recent interview with Politico. And, he is the very same Congressman who has scheduled a hearing for this Thursday on the radicalization of Islam in this country.
With its exclusive focus on Islam, this hearing is unfair to Muslims in America and throughout the world. And, it will stir up already existing paranoia and bigotry about Muslims, particularly since 9/11, and play right into the hands of extremists, operating falsely under the banner of Islam, to make the case that America’s goal is really not to fight terrorism, but to eradicate Islam.
As an Irish Catholic, King ought to know better what bigotry can do because the same suspicions of Muslims that many Americans harbor today were directed against Catholics, and particularly Irish Catholics in places like New York and Boston, in the 19th century and well into the 20th century.
According to Charles R. Morris in “American Catholic,” the Know-Nothing Party, based strictly on a platform of nativism and anti-Catholicism, became a potent force in American politics in the mid-19th century. In 1854, one hundred and twenty-one congressmen counted themselves among the Know-Nothings.
Those of us of a certain age don’t have to consult the history books to recall experiences of anti-Catholicism in our own lives, with the case of JFK running for President in 1960 as the prime example. People actually believed in those days that people could not be loyal Americans and faithful Catholics, and Kennedy had to go before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association to try to convince an audience of skeptical Protestant ministers that if elected his Catholic faith would not interfere with his duties as President.
In light of the continuing revelations of priestly pedophilia among Catholic clergy, I wonder what Rep. King and millions of my fellow Catholics would feel if a Muslim member of Congress were to call for a hearing on the contributions of Catholics to the rise of pedophilia in America?
Think about it.
Gerald E. Lavey
In case you missed it, that’s exactly what Rep. Peter King of New York, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a recent interview with Politico. And, he is the very same Congressman who has scheduled a hearing for this Thursday on the radicalization of Islam in this country.
With its exclusive focus on Islam, this hearing is unfair to Muslims in America and throughout the world. And, it will stir up already existing paranoia and bigotry about Muslims, particularly since 9/11, and play right into the hands of extremists, operating falsely under the banner of Islam, to make the case that America’s goal is really not to fight terrorism, but to eradicate Islam.
As an Irish Catholic, King ought to know better what bigotry can do because the same suspicions of Muslims that many Americans harbor today were directed against Catholics, and particularly Irish Catholics in places like New York and Boston, in the 19th century and well into the 20th century.
According to Charles R. Morris in “American Catholic,” the Know-Nothing Party, based strictly on a platform of nativism and anti-Catholicism, became a potent force in American politics in the mid-19th century. In 1854, one hundred and twenty-one congressmen counted themselves among the Know-Nothings.
Those of us of a certain age don’t have to consult the history books to recall experiences of anti-Catholicism in our own lives, with the case of JFK running for President in 1960 as the prime example. People actually believed in those days that people could not be loyal Americans and faithful Catholics, and Kennedy had to go before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association to try to convince an audience of skeptical Protestant ministers that if elected his Catholic faith would not interfere with his duties as President.
In light of the continuing revelations of priestly pedophilia among Catholic clergy, I wonder what Rep. King and millions of my fellow Catholics would feel if a Muslim member of Congress were to call for a hearing on the contributions of Catholics to the rise of pedophilia in America?
Think about it.
Gerald E. Lavey
Monday, March 7, 2011
All Politics are Local… and Personal
Tip O’Neill’s famous line about “all politics are local” came to mind as I was pondering the situation in Wisconsin where the Governor is trying to strip public unions of their collective bargaining rights.
As a liberal Democrat and former Government employee, the unions should have me in their pockets, out picketing in the streets and firing off letters to Congress. But, for the last couple of weeks, I have been conflicted, based in large part on my unpleasant experience at the FAA dealing with agency’s largest and most powerful union, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA).
In the words of 17th century philosopher Thomas Hobbes in a totally different context, that experience was “short, nasty, and brutish,” but unfortunately in my case not “short.” That aside, it’s time for me to look at the union position from a larger perspective. And, through that lens, what the Governor is trying to do in Wisconsin comes into sharp relief as a cheap political ploy masquerading as a deficit reduction measure. It is thinnest of fig leafs because the public unions had already agreed to the Governor’s cuts.
But, with the nation in the throes of a slow economic recovery and hundreds of thousands in the private sector still out of work, it’s a convenient time for the Republicans to paint public unions as the bogeyman. It plays well throughout the country, particularly in the heartland and in the South. Everyone needs a scapegoat. The Republican Governor of Indiana has already gotten rid of collective bargaining rights for public employees in his State and the Republican Governor of Ohio aims to do the same.
Once, public unions hardly came up as a blip on the national labor screen but as private sector unions have declined precipitously over the last five decades, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that now “more union members are government workers, not private sector employees,” according to a recent New Yorker article. That’s what helped put public unions in the Republican crosshairs. If the power of the public unions can be reduced, their role as a major donor to Democratic causes can be sharply curtailed as well.
We can’t let that happen because with the income disparity between the rich and the poor increasingly widening in this country and the median income of the middle class remaining essentially stagnant, we need unions to help redress the balance. But, both unions in the private and public sectors need to do some of the heavy lifting in terms of building broad political support, mainly by showing they care about the economy as a whole and the financial well-being of the agencies and organizations they work for, and not just about increasing the salaries and benefits of their own union workers, the rest of the country be damned.
If the U.S. is to continue to lead the world’s economy, we need the unions to help us maintain our leadership role but they must realize that for us to get there we can’t keep doing more of the same and expecting a different result.
Gerald E. Lavey
As a liberal Democrat and former Government employee, the unions should have me in their pockets, out picketing in the streets and firing off letters to Congress. But, for the last couple of weeks, I have been conflicted, based in large part on my unpleasant experience at the FAA dealing with agency’s largest and most powerful union, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA).
In the words of 17th century philosopher Thomas Hobbes in a totally different context, that experience was “short, nasty, and brutish,” but unfortunately in my case not “short.” That aside, it’s time for me to look at the union position from a larger perspective. And, through that lens, what the Governor is trying to do in Wisconsin comes into sharp relief as a cheap political ploy masquerading as a deficit reduction measure. It is thinnest of fig leafs because the public unions had already agreed to the Governor’s cuts.
But, with the nation in the throes of a slow economic recovery and hundreds of thousands in the private sector still out of work, it’s a convenient time for the Republicans to paint public unions as the bogeyman. It plays well throughout the country, particularly in the heartland and in the South. Everyone needs a scapegoat. The Republican Governor of Indiana has already gotten rid of collective bargaining rights for public employees in his State and the Republican Governor of Ohio aims to do the same.
Once, public unions hardly came up as a blip on the national labor screen but as private sector unions have declined precipitously over the last five decades, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that now “more union members are government workers, not private sector employees,” according to a recent New Yorker article. That’s what helped put public unions in the Republican crosshairs. If the power of the public unions can be reduced, their role as a major donor to Democratic causes can be sharply curtailed as well.
We can’t let that happen because with the income disparity between the rich and the poor increasingly widening in this country and the median income of the middle class remaining essentially stagnant, we need unions to help redress the balance. But, both unions in the private and public sectors need to do some of the heavy lifting in terms of building broad political support, mainly by showing they care about the economy as a whole and the financial well-being of the agencies and organizations they work for, and not just about increasing the salaries and benefits of their own union workers, the rest of the country be damned.
If the U.S. is to continue to lead the world’s economy, we need the unions to help us maintain our leadership role but they must realize that for us to get there we can’t keep doing more of the same and expecting a different result.
Gerald E. Lavey
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Freedom From Fear
It’s a story as common as standing up to a bully on the playground or news breaking stories about the toppling of a powerful, entrenched dictator in the Middle East. When individuals or groups are no longer afraid or are simply tired of being afraid and are willing to roll the dice, they can truly break free and begin to live as liberated human beings.
The example of the protesters in Tunisia, Egypt, and now Libya is a dramatic case of facing fear under fire. But, fear stalks us all, and can make cowards of us all, if we let it, and every day we hear about or know examples in daily life of courageous individuals throwing off the shackles of fear and reclaiming their lives. It might be a woman who leaves her husband after putting up for years with his abusive behavior. It could be the simple case of employees finally calling the bluff of a tyrannical boss. Or a young man starting out his career crippled with the fear of public speaking finally getting help to overcome that fear. Or a person with an incurable disease living life to the full right up to the end.
Over the past couple of decades, command and control, based on fear, is losing its grip as a preferred management style as well, as younger people coming into the work force no longer want to work for such organizations. Even my own Catholic Church is slowing learning the limitations of fear as a management principle, as more and more Catholics no longer are responding to a message based chiefly on hierarchical command and control. Growing up in the 40’s and 50’s, guilt and fear were out constant companions. That appeal no longer works, as the huge number of former Catholics leaving Church sadly bears witness.
Michel Montaigne, 16th century French essayist, says in an essay titled “Of Fear,” that it is a passion “which carries our judgment away sooner from its proper seat” than any other and “it exceeds all disorders in intensity.” He also said, reminiscent of FDR’s 1933 inaugural address almost four centuries later, “The thing I fear most is fear.” According to Sarah Bakewell’s new biography (How to Live: A Life of Montaigne), Montaigne had a morbid fear of death that obsessed him up through his 30’s. Fortunately, “the constriction did not last,” she writes. “By his forties and fifties, Montaigne was liberated into light-heartedness.” And, it was during that period, when he really started to live, that he wrote most of his wonderful essays that still speak to us compelling today.
Death, of course, is the big moose under the table and as one gets older and sees relatives and friends dying, it’s hard to ignore death. But, it also becomes more real and with that comes the realization that always fearing death is no way to live, as Montaigne ultimately concluded. After all, none of us is going to get out of this life alive. We’re all going to die, so why keep practicing for it!
In a wonderful poem, “When Death Comes,” Mary Oliver said it best when she wrote:
When it’s over, I want to say: all my life
I was a bride married to amazement.
I was the bridegroom, taking the world into my arms.
When it’s over, I don’t want to wonder
If I made of my life something particular, and real.
I don’t want to find myself sighing, and frightened
Or full of argument.
I don’t want to end up simply having visited this world.
Gerald E. Lavey
The example of the protesters in Tunisia, Egypt, and now Libya is a dramatic case of facing fear under fire. But, fear stalks us all, and can make cowards of us all, if we let it, and every day we hear about or know examples in daily life of courageous individuals throwing off the shackles of fear and reclaiming their lives. It might be a woman who leaves her husband after putting up for years with his abusive behavior. It could be the simple case of employees finally calling the bluff of a tyrannical boss. Or a young man starting out his career crippled with the fear of public speaking finally getting help to overcome that fear. Or a person with an incurable disease living life to the full right up to the end.
Over the past couple of decades, command and control, based on fear, is losing its grip as a preferred management style as well, as younger people coming into the work force no longer want to work for such organizations. Even my own Catholic Church is slowing learning the limitations of fear as a management principle, as more and more Catholics no longer are responding to a message based chiefly on hierarchical command and control. Growing up in the 40’s and 50’s, guilt and fear were out constant companions. That appeal no longer works, as the huge number of former Catholics leaving Church sadly bears witness.
Michel Montaigne, 16th century French essayist, says in an essay titled “Of Fear,” that it is a passion “which carries our judgment away sooner from its proper seat” than any other and “it exceeds all disorders in intensity.” He also said, reminiscent of FDR’s 1933 inaugural address almost four centuries later, “The thing I fear most is fear.” According to Sarah Bakewell’s new biography (How to Live: A Life of Montaigne), Montaigne had a morbid fear of death that obsessed him up through his 30’s. Fortunately, “the constriction did not last,” she writes. “By his forties and fifties, Montaigne was liberated into light-heartedness.” And, it was during that period, when he really started to live, that he wrote most of his wonderful essays that still speak to us compelling today.
Death, of course, is the big moose under the table and as one gets older and sees relatives and friends dying, it’s hard to ignore death. But, it also becomes more real and with that comes the realization that always fearing death is no way to live, as Montaigne ultimately concluded. After all, none of us is going to get out of this life alive. We’re all going to die, so why keep practicing for it!
In a wonderful poem, “When Death Comes,” Mary Oliver said it best when she wrote:
When it’s over, I want to say: all my life
I was a bride married to amazement.
I was the bridegroom, taking the world into my arms.
When it’s over, I don’t want to wonder
If I made of my life something particular, and real.
I don’t want to find myself sighing, and frightened
Or full of argument.
I don’t want to end up simply having visited this world.
Gerald E. Lavey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)