Posts
Izgad had a good post last week, Does the Stimulus Package Discriminate Against Aspergers? He refers to an article by David Brooks that discusses two kinds of business people: princes and grinds. Princes are charming extroverts, whereas grinds are socially-awkward. But the princes were the ones who "behaved with incredible stupidity" and helped cause our current economic mess, while the grinds---"the hedge fund loners"---"often behaved with impressive restraint."
But who have been the beneficiaries of President Obama's stimulus plan? According to Izgad, it's been the princes, who have "the lobbyists and the connections." And Izgad, a libertarian, recognizes here an important principle:
This is a basic principle well understood by libertarians that the very act of the government stepping in with rules and regulations benefits those who already are connected to the establishment and know how to work it at the expense of those who are not.
I've heard about this sort of thing from all over the political spectrum, from the John Birch Society literature that I read as a child and a teen, to my left-wing textbooks in my undergraduate political science class: government intervention often serves the interests of the powerful rather than those who need help.
A commentor on Izgad's blog, Clarissa (a liberal feminist), offers a different perspective:
Brooks doesn't know what he's talking about (as usual). Senior executives at major corporations are the most boring, vapid people who know nothing and can discuss nothing other than their bottom line. They aren't autistic. They are just boring, vacuous people. They get government handouts not because they are charming (Blankfein charming? Come on) but because they are connected. The people giving handouts to Goldman all used to work for Goldman, so that's not hard to figure out.
Another thing I wanted to mention is that people with Asperger's are often extremely charming. It's a kind of a mask one uses to "pass" in social situations.
Izgad's post and Clarissa's response bring three things to my mind:
First, there's the book that I recently read, Adam McHugh's Introverts in the Church. In a chapter on leadership, McHugh compares flashy, extroverted, charismatic business executives with those who are introverts. The flashy ones failed to establish a lasting foundation for their company that would outlast them after their retirement or death, whereas the introverted ones worked on building their company rather than bringing attention to themselves. I liked this chapter because the message I often get in life is that I'll fail because I'm socially-awkward. Sure, I need to work on my social skills, but there are plenty of ways that I can contribute to life as an introvert.
Second, I've often wondered what sort of political system would allow me to thrive as a person with Asperger's. In the Asperger's support group that I attended in New York City, many of the members preferred the Democrats to the Republicans, feeling that the Democrats supported a society that is compassionate to the marginalized and the down-and-out. Some of them received government disability or unemployment, or lived in government-subsidized housing, since their deficiencies in social skills inhibited them from making an adequate income. They thought that a libertarian or a Republican society would be dog-eat-dog, depriving them of the help that they needed to get by.
Yet, there are plenty of people with Asperger's who are libertarians, conservatives, or Republicans, for a variety of reasons.
Personally, I'm not in favor of people living off of the state, without working. Not long ago, a society that allowed that sort of thing would have appealed to me, since I was scared of working and being around people: why should I have to starve or go homeless because of my hang-ups? Now that I work and see $40 of my already meager paycheck being eaten up in taxes, however, I have a slightly different attitude. I wonder why people should get things for free while I work.
I'm not for a society that says "You're on your own", though. I'd like for the government---or somebody in society---to help people live productive lives, by offering job training, or counseling on work that is appropriate for them, in light of their talents and capabilities. I should also remember that there are plenty of people who work, yet they don't make enough of an income to take care of life's necessities. That's why state programs are for "low-income" people: there's an income there, meaning many of the recipients are working, in some capacity. Moreover, in our current economy, people are having difficulty finding jobs.
I also agree with something Izgad said in his post, Asperger Hiring:
The first step in solving this problem is to get out of the medical model of disability and move to a social model where people on the spectrum are viewed not as people who are disabled, but as members of a minority group. Businesses exist to make money; they are not going to hire charity cases. They can, though, be convinced to follow their own interests and hire and even go out of their way to make room for people who are unconventional and have unconventional skills.
Again, there should be structures in place---government or private---that help people with Asperger's to recognize what their skills are, and to figure out how such skills can translate into a job.
Third, there's the issue of "charm". There would be plenty of people who'd say that I don't have it. But, believe it or not, there are also plenty of people who have called me "charming"---maybe because they find me amuzing, or cute, or innocent. I don't especially like being considered "charming" for these reasons, since I prefer to be looked up to, or to be seen as distinguished. But I can understand why one could argue that people with Asperger's have charm: many of them do have something that attracts others to them.
