Vulnerability and a Life of Passion

In Brené Brown's TED Talk, "The power of vulnerability," she describes how the people who find life fulfilling have to embrace the idea of feeling uncomfortable, of being uncompromisingly who they are, and being proud of it. Only then can people live lives full of passion and connection.

Last Friday, David Brooks touched on this topic in his article, "Lady Gaga and the Life of Passion." Reflecting on Gaga's reflection that she has always wanted to be brave and passionate, Brooks examines what makes someone live whole-heartedly. He says, "I suppose that people who live with passion start out with an especially intense desire to complete themselves...We have to bring ourselves to fulfillment, to integration and to coherence." But, in order to do this, we have to open ourselves up to being comfortable with where we are. We have to be open to exploration and we have to decide not to settle for anything less than what we want.

In our culture, we teach children that they should have an answer ready for what they want to be when they grow up as young as elementary school. On Halloween each year you can usually find a few kids in helmets or lab coats who will enthusiastically tell you that they want to be a doctor, a scientist, a construction worker, or a firefighter. While we do not put much emphasis on their answers (they are only eight years old, after all), there is still an expectation that we should know what we want to do and where we want to go in the future.

As I have mentioned in previous posts, I am undecided about what I ultimately want to study at Penn State. I often find it really frustrating to be in this position because so many of my peers have their lives mapped out from now to post-graduation. But, I also know that I do not feel ready to pick a major. I need to embrace the fact that I don't know where I'm going or what I'm doing.

Both Brooks and Brown argue that you need to have courage and embrace vulnerability to lead a fulfilling life. As Brooks says, "We all care what others think about us. People with passion are just less willing to be ruled by the tyranny of public opinion." After we break out of society's expectations of us, we will find that we have more freedom to be who we want to be.

At an event, I recently heard a speaker describe a very easy, but important exercise that can help you really reflect on why you do what you do. Take a piece of paper and write down everything that you have participated in or spent time on (include things you do now). Then write the reasons you do each one. We all do things because we know they look good for employers or because we know they would make our parents happy. But challenge yourself to only do the things you enjoy.

Brooks ends his article on a powerful note asking, "Who would you be and what would you do if you weren’t afraid?" I challenge all of you to find this out.

What's up with Hillary's Flip-Flops?

No, this post is not actually about Hillary Clinton's flip-flops (for the record, I don't think she would be caught dead in a pair of those shoes), but rather her changing opinions about certain key issues. Brooks brings this issue up in his article, "Hillary Clinton's Opportunist Solution!" in which he criticizes Clinton for "do[ing] whatever she needs to do, say[ing] whatever needs to be said and fight[ing] for whatever constituency is most useful at the moment."

While Brooks acknowledges that Clinton may have experienced a genuine change of heart about some things, he concludes that she has flip-flopped too many times about issues that are too important to her constituency for it to be a coincidence. For example, Clinton used to oppose gay marriage, but changed her mind right around the time that it became a hot topic for Democrats. She has also switched from supporting what she once called "the gold standard in trade agreements" to now vehemently opposing it.

As a voter considering candidates in the Democratic party, this worries me. I understand that it can be hard to reconcile your true beliefs with what the party wants (especially as both parties become more radical in nature). A good candidate has to be able to win a strong base and then in the general election, they have to move towards the center to appease the other party. And Clinton has shown that she is more than capable of swinging.

But, does this make her a good candidate?

Even if you agree with what Clinton is (currently) supporting, how can you guarantee that she will act on her campaign promises? This is true for all candidates involved, but Clinton has already shown us an impressive track record of changing her mind.

As Brooks mentions, "The Clinton theory of the campaign seems to be that people vote on the basis of what policy a candidate can deliver...But it could be that voters actually vote on the basis of authenticity and trustworthiness. In that case, Clinton could be hurt by the fact that only 35 percent of, say, Floridians think she is honest and trustworthy."

In an earlier post, I talked about Joe Biden's interview on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. In it, he projected loyalty, trustworthiness, and respect for the American voter - all things that I think Clinton has failed to demonstrate. Biden, on the other hand, seemed like a good balance. He had the humility and passion of candidate Sanders, but he was more moderate and had more experience. Now with him officially out of the race, Clinton's chances at winning the Democratic primary are significantly higher.

I predict she will pull through the primaries. Sanders has enjoyed popularity with younger generations due to his honesty and ruggedness, but he will not be a good candidate for the general election. No Republican is going to consider voting for someone who self-identifies as a socialist. Webb has dropped out, which leaves O'Malley and Chafee. O'Malley definitely got his name out during the first Democratic debate, but his experience is limited compared to Clinton. As for Chafee, barely anyone noticed he was on the stage.

Clinton currently leads the race and it seems that she will continue to do so. We may just see our first woman president in 2016.

The Rise of the Radical Republican

It occurred to me today, while reading one of David Brook's posts, that I never really explained why I picked Mr. Brooks (as opposed to any of the other NY Times columnists) to respond to each week. So, here it goes:

I chose to follow columnist David Brooks because I respect him in a way that I cannot respect pretty much any Republican politician in this era. Even though I do not always agree with Mr. Brooks, I feel like he is open to conversation and reasoning. Many of his arguments are not made with a strong, "I'm right, you're wrong" tone, but are more subtle. Often he plays devil's advocate, exposing both sides of an idea before settling on one. I understand that on the national scale, candidates do not have this luxury to weigh pros and cons. In order to get money and support from their parties, they must do some pandering; they must sound confident in their policies; and they usually won't change their minds, for risk of being labeled as inconsistent or dishonest. It still never fails to frustrate me, though, when they say something offensive or just plain stupid.

The other reason I love following David Brooks is because he is not afraid to dissociate from his party. Instead of making it easier for himself, as so many people do, and letting the party make decisions for him, he looks at his own values and holds his party (and its candidates) accountable for measuring up to them. If they don't, he has no problem distancing himself.

In fact, he did just that this week in his article: "The Republicans' Incompetence Caucus," when he argued that the Republicans have changed to the point where they have lost their founding principles. He explains, "Conservatism stands for intellectual humility,...incremental change, a preference for reform rather than revolution, a respect for hierarchy, precedence, balance and order, and a tone of voice that is prudent, measured and responsible...All of this has been overturned in dangerous parts of the Republican Party." Personally, I couldn't agree more. The Republicans, especially those in the House, have become so radicalized that they would rather shut down the government than talk reasonably about issues like funding Planned Parenthood or the Affordable Care Act.

Brooks points out that politics is "the process of making decisions amid diverse opinions. It involves conversation, calm deliberation, self-discipline, the capacity to listen to other points of view and balance valid but competing ideas and interests." Politics is meant to be a way of reconciling two different opinions in order to improve our society. Instead, Republicans have come to look at politics in general as a corrupt institution. And instead of working together with Democrats to set it right, they just sit around complaining. They would rather stall the political processes than make a compromise to get something done.

I can only hope, for Brook's sake and my own, that things change soon - preferably before the 2016 election.

Should we take higher education to a higher level?

What is the goal of higher education? Is it to explore our interests and learn more about ourselves? Is it to get a job (if you ask your parents, that's probably their answer)? Or is it some mix of both? Which schools are best to attend - big schools that are more career-focused, or smaller, liberal arts schools?

This week David Brook's article, "The Big University" exposes the evolution of the higher education system from a curriculum based on morals and spiritual understanding to a vocational assembly line. He laments that in today's universities, "Students are taught how to do things, but many are not forced to reflect on why they should do them or what we are here for. They are given many career options, but they are on their own when it comes to [deciding] which vocation would lead to the fullest life."

As an undecided student who has a love for learning, but also wants to get a job in the future, I completely relate to this mentality. Unfortunately, because I'm considering some technical majors, I am taking classes to teach me the skills required for a specific field instead of learning more about my personal philosophy. And I do feel that, for the most part, this is pretty characteristic of Penn State's programs. Do I wish that Penn State would put a greater emphasis on personal development? Yes. But, even though I may resent learning about protists in biology (when am I ever going to use that knowledge again?), I think that it's okay that these skills are the university's focus. And I think it's unfair of Brooks to accuse universities of not doing their job.

I would argue that some of the onus that Brooks puts on the university should be on the students to go out and seek those enriching opportunities through clubs or study abroad experiences. I personally, have made it my mission to learn more about my personal career development outside of class. Over my past few weeks at Penn State, I have sought out 10 upperclassmen who are majoring in the areas that I am considering. While this has not brought me that much closer to picking a major, it has helped me expand my network and has exposed me to the unique programs offered by each college.

Now, is it true that it might be easier to find these life-enriching experiences at a small liberal arts school? Maybe. But, part of life is being a self-advocate and taking charge of your own education. While I agree with Brooks that there has been a movement away from self-fulfillment in higher education, I think that if you are vocal about your goals, you can almost always combine your interests in a new and interesting way. For example, I met a student last week who is an IST major with a focus in Psychology; now that's a cool course of study.

Brooks also does point out that many universities are starting to return to the classical model, just in a different way. Instead of emphasizing religious teachings, many are offering interdisciplinary programs, or opportunities to conduct research outside of the classroom. Hopefully, these efforts will help make us well-rounded and skilled individuals upon graduation.

To answer my questions at the beginning of this post, I don't know what is best. I think it really does depend on the individual. But, I know for myself, that I will take the initiative to learn more about the world around me - even if I don't pick a humanities-oriented major. All I can say right now is that I am excited for my future and for discovering all this university has to offer over the next four years.