[...] three stories have dominated public conversation, and each one exemplifies another branch of indignity.
First, there was Mark Sanford’s press conference. Here was a guy utterly lacking in any sense of reticence, who was given to rambling self-exposure even in his moment of disgrace. Then there was the death of Michael Jackson and the discussion of his life. Here was a guy who was apparently untouched by any pressure to live according to the rules and restraints of adulthood. Then there was Sarah Palin’s press conference. Here was a woman who aspires to a high public role but is unfamiliar with the traits of equipoise and constancy, which are the sources of authority and trust.
But it’s not right to end on a note of cultural pessimism because there is the fact of President Obama. Whatever policy differences people may have with him, we can all agree that he exemplifies reticence, dispassion and the other traits associated with dignity. The cultural effects of his presidency are not yet clear, but they may surpass his policy impact. He may revitalize the concept of dignity for a new generation and embody a new set of rules for self-mastery.
What do all these people have in common: Barack Obama, Saarah Palin, Michael Jackson, and Mark Sanford? They're all famous, they're all on TV, they all do things to get on TV, etc.
Could it possibly be that people who have whatever traits were described there in the article as the "dignity code" choose not to live in a way that puts them on television?
What people we admire who don't necessarily aspire to "dignity" in Brooks's meaning? Let me just try to put a few out there. I realize not everyone will agree on these suggestions, but I'm just wondering what allows them to attempt to be subjectively good moral influences without working off the "dignity code?" Rick Warren, Dan Savage, Bono.There's something missing from today's David Brooks, and I intend to write more later to try to find out what it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment