David Brooks, "The Middle-Age Surge": Or Suicide Is Painless?

Tweet

"Your face and body can now be fixed, of course. But it's very different out there now. Your finances won't last long. Your panel of observers are waiting for you to choose."

- Ventura, "Vanilla Sky," 2001

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Middle-Age Surge," David Brooks tackles the topic of middle-age. Brooks cheerfully writes:

"[A]nother profound but more hidden change is the altered shape of middle age. What could have been considered the beginning of a descent is now a potential turning point — the turning point you are most equipped to take full advantage of.

It is the moment when you can look back on your life so far and see it with different eyes. Hopefully you’ve built up some wisdom, which, as the psychologists define it, means seeing the world with more compassion, grasping opposing ideas at the same time, tolerating ambiguity and reacting with equanimity to the small setbacks of life.

By middle age you might begin to see, retrospectively, the dominant motifs that have been running through your various decisions. You might begin to see how all your different commitments can be integrated into one meaning and purpose. You might see the social problem your past has made you uniquely equipped to tackle. You might have enough clarity by now to orient your life around a true north on some ultimate horizon."

Meaning and purpose! A true north! How reassuring, particularly for someone like me . . . unless, nearing 62, I have already voyaged beyond the boundaries of middle-age and passed into the purgatory of  . . . gasp . . . old-age.

But wait! Is middle-age all that Brooks makes it out to be? As reported in a May 6, 2013 Psychology Today article entitled "White, Middle-Age Suicide In America Skyrockets" by Dale Archer M.D.:

"Suicide, once thought to be associated with troubled teens and the elderly, is quickly becoming an age-blind statistic. Middle aged Americans are turning to suicide in alarming numbers. The reasons include easily accessible prescription painkillers, the mortgage crisis and most importantly the challenge of a troubled economy. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention claims suicide rates now top the number of deaths due to automobile accidents."

A temporary blip owing to the economy? I don't think so. As more recently reported by Gina Kolata in a November 2, 2015 New York Times article entitled "Death Rates Rising for Middle-Aged White Americans, Study Finds" (my emphasis in red):

"Something startling is happening to middle-aged white Americans. Unlike every other age group, unlike every other racial and ethnic group, unlike their counterparts in other rich countries, death rates in this group have been rising, not falling.

That finding was reported Monday by two Princeton economists, Angus Deaton, who last month won the 2015 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science, and Anne Case. Analyzing health and mortality data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and from other sources, they concluded that rising annual death rates among this group are being driven not by the big killers like heart disease and diabetes but by an epidemic of suicides and afflictions stemming from substance abuse: alcoholic liver disease and overdoses of heroin and prescription opioids."

The "middle-age surge" or "suicide is painless" Take your pick.

David Brooks, "The Streamlined Life": Love in the Time of Chimera II

"Your face and body can now be fixed, of course. But it's very different out there now. Your finances won't last long. Your panel of observers are waiting for you to choose."

- Ventura, "Vanilla Sky," 2001


Questions: Are you able to talk with your children? More to the point, are they interested in talking with you? Do your children know or even care which books you are reading? Do they know what exactly it is that you do? Have they ever asked about your suffering?

In his prior New York Times op-ed entitled "Love Story" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/02/opinion/brooks-love-story.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), David Brooks concluded:

"I’m old enough to remember when many people committed themselves to this sort of life and dreamed of this sort of communion — the whole Great Books/Big Ideas thing. I am not sure how many people believe in or aspire to this sort of a life today. I’m not sure how many schools prepare students for this kind of love."

"[H]ow many schools prepare students for this kind of love"? Today, in a Times op-ed entitled "The Streamlined Life" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/06/opinion/brooks-the-streamlined-life.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), David Brooks answers his own question. Telling us of the results of U.C.L.A. surveys of student values over past decades, Brooks writes:

"In 1985, 64 percent of students said they ranked in the top 10 percent or at least above average in terms of mental health. But today, students admit to being much more emotionally vulnerable. They also declare low levels of spiritual self-confidence.

. . . .

The surveys still reveal generations driven by curiosity, a desire to have a good family, a good community and good values. But people clearly feel besieged. There is the perception that life is harder. Certainly their parents think it is harder. The result is that you get a group hardened for battle, more focused on the hard utilitarian things and less focused on spiritual or philosophic things; feeling emotionally vulnerable, but also filled with résumé assertiveness. The inner world wanes; professional intensity waxes."

It would seem that today's students can no longer afford the "Great Books/Big Ideas thing." Facing the higher cost of college, they are too consumed by anxiety and economic survival to give much of a damn about "this kind of love."

And yet, as observed by Brooks, today's students do not lack in self-esteem:

"They rate themselves much more highly than past generations on leadership skills, writing abilities, social self-confidence and so on."

Welcome to our brave new narcissistic world.

And so, given the chance and the choice, would you care to jump back into life or remain forever in suspended animation? Your panel of observers from Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Amazon and the National Security Agency are waiting for you to choose.

David Brooks, "Religion and Inequality": Narcissism, Plutocracy, Prevarication and Mud

"It's been a brilliant journey of self-awakening, and you've simply got to ask yourself -- what is happiness to you."

- Ventura asking David if he wishes to awaken from suspended animation, "Vanilla  Sky" (2001), written by Cameron Crowe.

Was it always this bad? Was government always so corrupt? Were people always driven by greed? Or is it simply that we are so much more aware of all that swirls around us owing to the Internet and the immediacy which it grants?

More to the point, are you adaptable to this new age of narcissism and plutocracy, or would you prefer to remain in suspended animation? What is happiness to you? Is it all about happiness? Is it all about you?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Religion and Inequality" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/opinion/brooks-religion-and-inequality.html), David Brooks observes the ascendancy of "meritocratic hierarchy of professional success" at the expense of other status hierarchies. Brooks writes:

"Many rich people once felt compelled to try to square their happiness at being successful with their embarrassment about it. They adopted what Charles Murray calls a code of seemliness (no fancy clothes or cars). Not long ago, many people covered their affluence with a bohemian patina, but that patina has grown increasingly thin.

Now most of us engage in more matter-of-fact boasting: the car stickers that describe the driver’s summers on Martha’s Vineyard, the college window stickers, the mass embrace of luxury brands, even the currency of 'likes' on Facebook and Reddit as people unabashedly seek popularity.

The culture was probably more dynamic when there were competing status hierarchies. When there is one hegemonic hierarchy, as there is today, the successful are less haunted by their own status and the less successful have nowhere to hide."

Culture was more "dynamic"? I don't know what this means. My value system is antiquated. My handful of customers know that I live by a code of ethics. I don't sport luxury brands. You won't find me on Facebook. I read books, and I listen to the same music that I listened to in the 1960s, not that I'm certain it was any better then.

And when you live in the past, you don't easily forget. A week ago, David Ignatius, in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Susan Rice, a provocateur in the West Wing" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-susan-rice-a-provocateur-in-the-west-wing/2013/06/05/5b7f0e10-ce22-11e2-8f6b-67f40e176f03_story.html?hpid=z2), wrote:

"Enough, already, about Benghazi."

Sorry David, but not enough already about Benghazi. Americans were spared having to see what was done to Ambassador Steven's body after the Obama administration refused to lift a finger to prevent his murder and the deaths of three other Americans. Since that time, none of those responsible for this abomination have paid the price.

Do Obama and Hillary go to bed thinking about Chris Stevens? I doubt it.

I am also insulted by the answer of US State Department spokesperson Jennifer Psaki to a question concerning the Obama administration's response to the use of chemical weapons by forces loyal to Syrian tyrant Bashar al-Assad (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2013/06/210579.htm):

QUESTION: Okay. But the approach still is – and correct me if I’m wrong – the approach still is that if chemical weapons use can be – is proved to a certainty or to a degree with which you’re confident that it is – that is accurate, that that is a game-changer --

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: -- and that a game-changing means a policy shift, correct?

MS. PSAKI: That is – the President said it is a redline, it is a game-changer. What that means in terms of the options, as you know, I will leave that to them to discuss.

QUESTION: Well, does changing the game mean – I mean, to me, that means that – that would signal – it would be a harbinger of a policy shift. Am I incorrect?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to get ahead of where we are, which is we’re not at that point.

QUESTION: So a game-changer doesn’t necessarily change the game. Is that what you’re saying?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, the President himself --

QUESTION: Because I don’t get it then.

MS. PSAKI: The President himself, and the Secretary has repeated, have said – let me just finish – that this is a redline, that if it’s crossed there are a number of options for them to consider. But we’re not at that point yet, so I don’t want to get ahead of what it means when we’re not at that point yet. We haven’t crossed --

QUESTION: Okay. Well, fair enough. Now it seems to – you seem to be implying that one of the options is to do nothing, is to change nothing. Is that an option?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I’m not going to analyze the President’s options. They’re expansive. They’re – he’s asked his national security team to look into them.

QUESTION: All right. I understand. But it seems to me the Administration has been about as clear as mud on this, on what it means. And I just want it --

MS. PSAKI: Some mud is clear.

"Some mud is clear"? I worked in muddy farm fields when I was younger, I waded through mud in the military, but I have yet to encounter clear mud.

Welcome to our brave new world, home to a culture of lying, which has become second nature to anyone pursuing a career in government. Unlike David (Tom Cruise) in "Vanilla Sky," I think I would opt to continue living in suspended animation.