Can We Retire ‘Failure’?
Terry H. Schwadron
Feb. 9, 2022
How about we retire the word “failure” in explaining our world — at least while we have serious cultural divides.
Whether coverage of the Winter Olympics or sport more generally, Covid or politics and the workings of Washington, we’re awash with references to “failures” by athletes and leaders whose work does not necessarily overcome all hurdles in the match or resolve all problems of a two-year-plus pandemic in a day.
Our television commentators are so addicted to labeling anything less than a gold medal as a “failure” that they couldn’t be noticing how often they say it. Even the championship matches where one person or team must be declared a “winner” inevitably results from the “failure” of the other team to mount the most effective offense or defense throughout the entire game.
Coming in second or ninth doesn’t make the athlete less committed, just less talented, perhaps, or less lucky to survive the moment. Let’s set aside the kind of mental stress that has prompted some well-known athletes simply to halt temporarily or why “success” is limited only to American athletes.
Newspapers routinely review dance, music and theater by professionals who work hard at their game, with critics who dismiss a particular artistic choice as “failure,” rather than trying to explain it.
Can’t we even remember that the runners-up in these things are among the world’s best?
So, apply all that to the “failure” of Joe Biden to unravel complicated, global supply chain knots, send Covid contagion packing with a flick of an administrative wrist or eliminate international threats from Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.
Stop it. These are top athletes who push themselves to risks under pressures that the rest of us could only imagine. Those in public health are not “failing”; if anything, they are being largely successful in turning fatal contagion into something annoying but less deadly.
As for the politicians, they generally are not “failing,” we are better served by recognizing that, regardless of party, they generally are choosing policies, paths and messages that are too risky for instant success, like seeking bipartisan support in split and increasingly uncooperative Congress.
Alternatives to Failing
It’s a simple request, really. Let’s focus on what the intent is, measure it against what gets done, and report on the gap. It doesn’t have to be a “failure” if it was a target that couldn’t be hit right away.
If you slip on a banana peel, you didn’t fail, you fell. If you tried to lose 20 pounds in a week, you didn’t fail, you picked an unrealistic target. If you want world peace in a world where autocratic tyrants want to unleash their armies and weapons to threaten one another, you are much more likely to find yourself unable to reach your goal than “fail.”
Moreover, there is no effective takeaway from labeling something a “failure.” There is much to learn from history, from experience, from mistakes even.
Yet over and over, we hear it. The Olympics commentator watching a woman snowboarder flip multiple times before missing a landing noted, “She didn’t bring the goods,” as if that were useful information. A Chinese skater who fell in competition finds herself a target of social media scorn for “failing.”
Football teams headed for this week’s Superbowl “failed” to stop a run or pass, or the offense “failed” to see how to outthink the opponent’s defense. How about just telling us the score — or saying nothing at all and let us watch or read the result ourselves.
No, winning is the only thing that seems to matter, not listening, training, preparing or working to lessen a problem.
Just Google “failure and news,” minus power failures in winter storem, and you bring up dozens of headlines using the word in ways that fuel more divide.
Biden is a failure because thousands want to cross our nation’s Southern border, or because employment numbers rose less than unrealistic estimates had suggested or because Covid effects persist amid a continuing rebellion to vaccines.
Unattainable Targets
Much of the time, “failure” just means having set an objective that was unachievable.
Donald Trump didn’t “fail” to win the election; he lost the popular and Electoral College votes. Yet he pursues the tale that opponents so rigged the election that they are “failing” a fairness doctrine that he has created — and Republican legislatures are pushing — to ensure that there could be only one outcome, however unrealistic or illegal. Trump didn’t “fail” to keep White House records; he tore them up, reports The Washington Post.
The Jan. 6 rioters didn’t “fail” to overturn the election results that day. They aggressively sought to intimidate and threaten members of Congress, hurt Capitol and Washington police, and did damage. Thus, they face prosecution, not for “failure” but for assertive if ineffective attempts to redo election results.
Biden didn’t “fail” in a messy, hurried Afghanistan withdrawal. He walked right into a badly botched evacuation, having passed on the chance to start earlier out of deference to an ineffective Afghan government. Biden and Dr. Anthony Fauci didn’t create Covid and its global effects; we could do more to note the efforts to de-fang the contagion, while still noting that we’re tired of masks, vaccine exhortations and off-and-on business effects.
Your kid didn’t “fail” if every grade was not A+. The point is to learn to match capabilities, not to score points.
There are oodles more examples, but the point is clear. Pick realistic, achievable results and you get success — you “win.” Shoot for something more visionary and you risk “failure.”
We want our leaders to see and aim for a bigger picture. We need to hold them to efforts towards their expressed goals in sports, arts and politics. But labeling whatever is partial progress, no matter the extent of the effort, as “failure” serves no one.
##