WASHINGTON, D.C. March 24 (DPI) – Retired academic and journalist Tom Edsall, who writes a weekly online column on politics on the NYT site, posted one of those mildly provocative opinion pieces in which he asserted that old-fashioned discipline, restraint, persistence and delayed gratification go a long way in helping people advance professionally.

And he slipped in that now-familiar – and always controversial – suggestion that children from two-parent families are more inclined to show such traits, and do better in life as a result.

“What drives success?” Edsall asks. “Cognitive skills are important, but so are harder-to-measure strengths that fall under the heading of what is sometimes called character.”  He cited think-tank studies, some a few years old, supporting his premise.

Of course, “character” is an old-fashioned word, rarely heard nowadays to mean “the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual,” as Webster’s puts it.

That the 75-year-old Edsall, a moderate, considered – indeed, mature – voice on politics these days, tried to engage his readers about the notion of personal character reveals something about today’s generational divide. It’s a divide that rarely gets mention nowadays, what with the income, gender, racial and sex-preference divides that American society preoccupies itself with.

To a surprising degree, readers posted largely hostile and angry responses to Edsall’s column. The most popular reply reflected a deep cynicism and dismissiveness about the means to professional advancement. And of course the notion that single-parent homes produced less prepared young people offended some readers, who chose to blame right-wing elements in American politics for the problem.  And more too offered the current president as Exhibit A in the case that old-fashioned character traits don’t matter any more.

The Times site received 388 replies to Edsall’s column – here are three of the most recommended, including the top recommended first:

Mr. Edsall,
I have been working in industry in America for nearly 35 years now. Mostly on the East Coast, so, my perceptions might be different if I had worked south or west.
I have found, in the companies that I work in, that the following are the most visible traits in corporate leaders.
1. Ability to lie while looking sincere direct.
2. Ability to cover up or ignore a serious mistake in judgement. I could list many examples that all Americans would recognize.
3. Having made a disastrous decision, being able to lay the blame for that at someone else’ feet. Then, having effectively redirected blame, relieve that innocent person of his or her job.

4. Say, after hearing someone else give them a great idea that they never even heard of or thought of once in their lives: “That is where I was headed all along”. One of the most common phrases in the senior management ranks on the East Coast.
5. And, be able to take powerpoint slides somebody else prepared and labored to create, and, schedule a meeting to present them, carefully insuring that the creator of the content will NOT be at the meeting…so…they…can…take ….credit for what was never theirs.
So, please, spare me any perspective that would try to fool me into thinking leadership in America is anything but:
Weak men, afraid of failure, unsure of their ability, and insecure about whatever job they have, and, willing to lie, steal and cheat to keep the job.

What drives success? In America in 2017, it has become obvious that neither cognitive skills nor character are needed. Just look at the so-called “leader” of the country, who lacks curiosity, self-control, self-discipline, and many other features that define cognitive skills and character.

Is the problem “single mothers” or is it the right-wingers who conspire to create, perpetuate, and steadily increase economic inequality?
A young woman growing up in poverty has access to a very limited supply of men capable of earning enough money to support a family. Jobs are scarce, the minimum wage is far too small for a family to live on, and poor men (particularly those with dark skin) are preferential targets of arrest and incarceration–which will make good jobs forever unobtainable. Men usually won’t marry if they can’t support a family.
It surprises and annoys conservatives that impoverished women do not voluntarily accept that they must forever be abstinent and never bear a child. That they have the same sexual and maternal yearnings as wealthy women! (They don’t seem as bothered by the obvious fact that impoverished men have sexual yearnings, and strive mightily to satisfy them.)
The result of course is babies born to women who have little or no chance at marriage, well-paying jobs, affordable daycare, physical and mental healthcare for themselves and their kids, or safe communities; and who live in a country where school funding and thus quality depend on local tax revenue (by definition it is slim in their neighborhoods).

Blaming the mothers helps the right wing justify slashing the social safety net and increasing economic (and thus cognitive) inequality. Neither is a remedy; both harm public health. But wow, the special tax breaks that can be justified!