Decades of wealth creation and technological innovation fueled our world-leading standard of living, giving us the idea that a full-time job, home ownership, cheap credit, and an ever-rising stock market were simply American birthrights. We abandoned prudent savings in favor of instant gratification, using our own climbing home values and credit card debt to fuel our consumption of luxuries we seem to consider a right of citizenship. And our government high-fived us on our sprint to financial trouble, encouraging irresponsible debt through low interest rates and its meddling in private lending practices on behalf of those least able to pay up.   

Now that a frozen credit market, devalued real estate and a depressed job market calls for re-evaluation of our priorities, are we willing to sacrifice new luxury items, an extra car, or even a home we can’t afford in order to adjust to a new reality? Seeing our friends and family lose their jobs and homes must give us pause to ask ourselves some crucial questions. Are those of us who are not currently struggling paying off debt and saving for possible rainy days ahead?   If I lose my job tomorrow, how long can I survive with little or no income? Am I making great effort to be an indispensable employee? Bad luck befalls us all, but we can’t lay claim to victimhood when we fall behind on rent after we’ve paid 400 bucks for The Sopranos box set we’re watching on our new flat screen.  

The real tragedy of the Wall Street bailout in September is not the fact that it failed; it is the collective “Me too!” shouted from Main Street. Debates about lobbyist money aside, Wall Street doesn’t elect politicians. Likewise, these politicians don’t get elected by “doing nothing,” because proving inaction helped solve a problem is almost impossible. The public does elect politicians, so it can’t surprise anyone that our elected leaders quickly lined up beside us to “do something,” committing unprecedented amounts of money on economic stimulus and offering to renegotiate the terms of millions of mortgages previously agreed upon between willing parties. 

While an economic stimulus package was inevitable with or without help for the financial markets, the rush of government to the rescue sends a dangerous message, giving us less motivation to see ourselves as the way out.  Maybe you can’t blame us when politicians are doing their best to convince us that there really is such a thing as a free lunch. But for all the Obama Administration’s message of hope and change, it cannot be expected to rescue Americans from this mess. Massive government-sponsored economic, social, and judicial programs to “rescue” us from drugs, poverty, and violent crime failed miserably, and there’s little reason to think this vast outlay of borrowed and printed money will speed our recovery.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to offer opinions on our recovery without political or moral ideologies entering the debate. But human nature clearly suggests that we behave differently when we’re not fully exposed to the consequences of our actions. This concept, called moral hazard, applies to insurance, business, and our everyday lives. The same way a bank CEO is insulated from his poor decisions as he walks out the door with millions, the 25-year-old might not care to hold a steady job because mom and dad are providing a bed and three meals a day. When we have a safety net, in the form of government, our parents, or a golden parachute , it removes or reduces the consequence of failure, which can motivate us as much as the prospect of success. Simply put, the higher the cost of failure, the greater the pursuit of success. Heads you win, tails you break even is a comforting concept, but it won’t spur the competitive or creative impulses needed to protect yourself financially or make yourself more productive at work.

So what will the lesson be if President Obama decreed that your mortgage payment or principal be reduced, or your 401k restored to the levels of 2007? Of course, you might be ecstatic. But would you be a more responsible borrower or investor? To whom would you turn if you happen to fall upon hard times again? I am afraid many of my peers believe government is more than a protector of their freedom and safety. It must now be the guarantor of a given standard of living and a barrier between themselves and the injustices of life. Such a belief cripples the pioneering American spirit and runs completely counter to the values held by those who belong to what Tom Brokaw calls “The Greatest Generation.” Too many of us feel that inequities present in wages, hiring, or education are due to crimes against them that must be avenged through legislation or legal grievance, rather than the unpleasant self-truths that only honest self-examination that can reveal . 

We love to trumpet our American selves as tough, innovative, and ambitious, using the tired “man on the moon” example of American ascendancy yet wondering who is going to save the day this time. Collectively, we’re waiting on someone else to be tough, innovative, and ambitious on our behalf, returning our bank accounts and standard of living to previous levels through little or no effort of our own. “The Greatest Generation” is dying along with the priceless lessons learned through their struggles from the World War II era. But where our forebears used common values on the battlefields and factories to vanquish Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, our enemy this time isn’t well-defined, can’t be bombed, and can’t be dissuaded through shrewd diplomacy. It is our current set of values that abandons personal accountability in favor of an entitlement-based ethic that relies on the resources of others.   The rejection of those values is our best hope.