The STrib Nails It Again
The August 7, 2005 column by David Brooks absolutely stunned me. How can a purportedly well educated journalist actually miss an entire dying forest by looking at one or two trees that show just a little new growth?
After reciting a litany of statistics showing that murder rates are down, domestic violence reported to the police are down, and abortion rates are down, Mr. Brooks comes to the conclusion that we are in the midst of a grand 'moral self-repair."
But all of these efforts are part of a larger story. The decline in family violence is part of a whole web of positive, mutually reinforcing social trends. To put it in old-fashioned terms, America is becoming more virtuous. Americans today hurt each other less than they did 13 years ago. They are more likely to resist selfish and shortsighted impulses. They are leading more responsible, more organized lives. A result is an improvement in social order across a range of behaviors.
Huh? Does this man even read a newspaper? Watch television news?
In today's Minneapolis Star Tribune, the editorial writer suffered the same cognitive dissonance I did after reading Brooks' column. Referring to the column, the editorialist wrote:
But Brooks sees only half the picture. If he opened his other eye -- his eye on public virtue -- his claims of a clear moral revival would quickly blur.
Let's look at the public side. Is it moral to lead a nation to war based on false and selective information? Is it virtuous to pursue policies that eliminate medical care for the poorest people? Where's the morality in lavishing ever more tax advantages on the wealthy while the economy produces more inequality and less social mobility? Is it virtuous to steal millions from employees, pensioners and stockholders in the name of free enterprise?
Is it right to systematically abuse prisoners and detainees? Is it moral to advocate policies that irreparably damage the environment? Can it be honest to blithely deny the overwhelming scientific evidence of global warming and evolution? Is it acceptable to spread rumors and lies about your political opponent in order to get votes? How is it OK to exploit prejudices against people of a different sexual orientation to further your political gains?
Is it not arrogant and presumptuous for leaders to declare "God bless America" when, perhaps, America should worry whether its public actions in the world match up to its claims of divine guidance and match up to its progress on private virtue?
In posing these questions, we make no claims of moral superiority. We simply seek a wider view. As Brooks suggests, a revival in private morality is a wonderful thing. If that revival is truly genuine it will soon spread to the public side. When it does we can all rejoice.
Exactly. The STrib got it right again.
After reciting a litany of statistics showing that murder rates are down, domestic violence reported to the police are down, and abortion rates are down, Mr. Brooks comes to the conclusion that we are in the midst of a grand 'moral self-repair."
But all of these efforts are part of a larger story. The decline in family violence is part of a whole web of positive, mutually reinforcing social trends. To put it in old-fashioned terms, America is becoming more virtuous. Americans today hurt each other less than they did 13 years ago. They are more likely to resist selfish and shortsighted impulses. They are leading more responsible, more organized lives. A result is an improvement in social order across a range of behaviors.
Huh? Does this man even read a newspaper? Watch television news?
In today's Minneapolis Star Tribune, the editorial writer suffered the same cognitive dissonance I did after reading Brooks' column. Referring to the column, the editorialist wrote:
But Brooks sees only half the picture. If he opened his other eye -- his eye on public virtue -- his claims of a clear moral revival would quickly blur.
Let's look at the public side. Is it moral to lead a nation to war based on false and selective information? Is it virtuous to pursue policies that eliminate medical care for the poorest people? Where's the morality in lavishing ever more tax advantages on the wealthy while the economy produces more inequality and less social mobility? Is it virtuous to steal millions from employees, pensioners and stockholders in the name of free enterprise?
Is it right to systematically abuse prisoners and detainees? Is it moral to advocate policies that irreparably damage the environment? Can it be honest to blithely deny the overwhelming scientific evidence of global warming and evolution? Is it acceptable to spread rumors and lies about your political opponent in order to get votes? How is it OK to exploit prejudices against people of a different sexual orientation to further your political gains?
Is it not arrogant and presumptuous for leaders to declare "God bless America" when, perhaps, America should worry whether its public actions in the world match up to its claims of divine guidance and match up to its progress on private virtue?
In posing these questions, we make no claims of moral superiority. We simply seek a wider view. As Brooks suggests, a revival in private morality is a wonderful thing. If that revival is truly genuine it will soon spread to the public side. When it does we can all rejoice.
Exactly. The STrib got it right again.
posted by Diane at 5:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home