"Our role models are not those with virtue but those with money and fame. " Full stop. They are not our role models, having disqualified themselves by their behavior. I'll read on, but too often we operate under the mistaken notion that because someone has achieved some state of celebrity or some title or position of seeming influence that they are role models. They are not. We do have role models, those who live their lives in exemplary fashion and do what they can for others even, often, at some self-sacrifice and often anonymously. We should elevate their profiles, not the ones who are playing games at others' expense to advance themselves.
"Among our upper class, reticence is rare." Are they our upper class? Again, I reject the premise. Call them wealthy, if you wish, but too often there is little class in the picture. Okay, I'll be quiet now.
Act of virtue: My parents, when I was but 2, realized they could not afford the home they owned so they put it up for sale. A local doctor came forward to buy it and made an offer my father accepted. However, it was 1950 and in selling to the doctor he was selling to a black woman. My father was a rabbi but only in his first few years with the congregation and there were powerful people that asked him not to accept the offer, to sell to another buyer -- any buyer -- who was white. He sold the house to the doctor and we moved to a more modest home. He put his position on the line, possibly turning down more money for the house, because she had made an offer and he had accepted.
From the standpoint of a person who lives in the UK I can identify with most of what you say. The elevation of the moneyed classes to the ranks of role model, aspirational figure, or influencer is both sad and vulgar. For your Bill Clinton example read our Boris Johnson, or in fact most of our current government, for Taylor Swift read Marcus Rashford or Sir Elton John. The issue with modest altruism or philanthropy is that no-one gets to see the honourable acting with honour and the notion slips from view. The quiet altruism of noblesse oblige is scorned as patronising or conscience salving which, to me, is a petty and resentful take.
1) I don’t like arrogant jerks, but I’ve known a lot of arrogant jerks who had no money. (I’m using the word “jerk” to cover a lot of characteristics and personality traits)
2) There are a lot of things in our lives that bring out and magnify the best and worse in us. Money is only one of them. Power, intellect, and talent do the same. In a different light - our upbringing, our friends, or a personal/community crisis also bring out and magnify the best and worse in us.
3) Sometimes, arrogant jerks do very good things. Can I forgive his/her arrogance if they do truly good things with their money, intellect, or talent? For me, sometimes yes, sometimes no. I guess it depends on some combination of what good they do and how how big of a jerk they are.
4) Cultures where other than wealth is celebrated (e.g., Soviet Russia, institutional religion, universities) still produce their fair share of arrogant jerks who do truly awful things.
5) How would one go about curbing our worst instincts? I’m not sure. There is a tremendous calling in many people to subject themselves to the Alpha and if the Alpha is a jerk or worse, it doesn’t change that instinct.
6) But despite all of this, we can do better. I’m just not sure how.
Thanks for including my essay, David. Your post reminds me of the conundrum at the heart of Willa Cather's *A Lost Lady*. Captain Daniel Forrester represents noblesse oblige, but his values are challenged by the new generation led by Ivy Peters, an opportunistic attorney and real estate speculator.
I do want to say that my own recent meditation on simplicity isn't quite interchangeable with virtue. I prefer simplicity, but I realize that my children have different desires (as I did at their ages). I really don't want to shame them for the things they want, but I try to teach them gratitude and moderation along the way. Certainly there are forms of frugality that are too rigid to be virtuous.
Willa Cather herself tried to share her financial success with her neighbors and friends in Red Cloud, Nebraska. But I recall one example that has always rankled. Cather kept in touch with her childhood friend Annie Pavelka, a Czech woman who inspired the great *My Ántonia*, and even sent generous gifts, such as a mechanical washing machine. But Cather joked that the family ought to call it "Willie's Washer," which is where the story turns sour for me. It's hard to be generous and not want credit, but virtue to me requires taking the "I" out of it.
Here's a famous ranking of giving by the Jewish philosopher Maimonides, which i think you'll find interesting.
"Maimonides defines eight levels in giving charity (tzedakah), each one higher than the preceding one.
On an ascending level, they are as follows:
8. When donations are given grudgingly.
7. When one gives less than he should, but does so cheerfully.
6. When one gives directly to the poor upon being asked.
5. When one gives directly to the poor without being asked.
4. Donations when the recipient is aware of the donor's identity, but the donor still doesn't know the specific identity of the recipient.
3. Donations when the donor is aware to whom the charity is being given, but the recipient is unaware of the source.
2. Giving assistance in such a way that the giver and recipient are unknown to each other. Communal funds, administered by responsible people are also in this category.
1. The highest form of charity is to help sustain a person before they become impoverished by offering a substantial gift in a dignified manner, or by extending a suitable loan, or by helping them find employment or establish themselves in business so as to make it unnecessary for them to become dependent on others."
It’s not a noble feeling to want to throw a drink in another person’s face, but I get it. Prior to the 1900's, a glove upside the face got the offenders attention. Our founding fathers were known to duel outside the congress building, and in the old west, gunfights determined who won and lost.
All to often today, the rich and famous don't care for anyone but themselves. If the entertainers that have multi-billion dollar mansions wanted to, they could build homeless shelters and food kitchens for those who live out of the street. They could build detox and rehab centers for those on alcohol and drugs. But they don't, instead, they get on Xwitter and virtue signal.
As a writer, I always try to show how those who do have material riches should treat those who don't. They should be honorable, helpful, considerate, and give back to their communities.
Back in the day, owners of corporations built roads, schools and hospitals, so that those who lived around them could get around and get help. they worked hard to train the next generation in working principles.
Oh it’s all dreadful now - or maybe I’m getting old! I’m an aging spinster sleuth after all!
This is so true. I’ve always found virtuous the donors that choose to identify as “Anonymous” on museum plaques or charity lists.
"Our role models are not those with virtue but those with money and fame. " Full stop. They are not our role models, having disqualified themselves by their behavior. I'll read on, but too often we operate under the mistaken notion that because someone has achieved some state of celebrity or some title or position of seeming influence that they are role models. They are not. We do have role models, those who live their lives in exemplary fashion and do what they can for others even, often, at some self-sacrifice and often anonymously. We should elevate their profiles, not the ones who are playing games at others' expense to advance themselves.
"Among our upper class, reticence is rare." Are they our upper class? Again, I reject the premise. Call them wealthy, if you wish, but too often there is little class in the picture. Okay, I'll be quiet now.
Act of virtue: My parents, when I was but 2, realized they could not afford the home they owned so they put it up for sale. A local doctor came forward to buy it and made an offer my father accepted. However, it was 1950 and in selling to the doctor he was selling to a black woman. My father was a rabbi but only in his first few years with the congregation and there were powerful people that asked him not to accept the offer, to sell to another buyer -- any buyer -- who was white. He sold the house to the doctor and we moved to a more modest home. He put his position on the line, possibly turning down more money for the house, because she had made an offer and he had accepted.
From the standpoint of a person who lives in the UK I can identify with most of what you say. The elevation of the moneyed classes to the ranks of role model, aspirational figure, or influencer is both sad and vulgar. For your Bill Clinton example read our Boris Johnson, or in fact most of our current government, for Taylor Swift read Marcus Rashford or Sir Elton John. The issue with modest altruism or philanthropy is that no-one gets to see the honourable acting with honour and the notion slips from view. The quiet altruism of noblesse oblige is scorned as patronising or conscience salving which, to me, is a petty and resentful take.
A few initial impressions:
1) I don’t like arrogant jerks, but I’ve known a lot of arrogant jerks who had no money. (I’m using the word “jerk” to cover a lot of characteristics and personality traits)
2) There are a lot of things in our lives that bring out and magnify the best and worse in us. Money is only one of them. Power, intellect, and talent do the same. In a different light - our upbringing, our friends, or a personal/community crisis also bring out and magnify the best and worse in us.
3) Sometimes, arrogant jerks do very good things. Can I forgive his/her arrogance if they do truly good things with their money, intellect, or talent? For me, sometimes yes, sometimes no. I guess it depends on some combination of what good they do and how how big of a jerk they are.
4) Cultures where other than wealth is celebrated (e.g., Soviet Russia, institutional religion, universities) still produce their fair share of arrogant jerks who do truly awful things.
5) How would one go about curbing our worst instincts? I’m not sure. There is a tremendous calling in many people to subject themselves to the Alpha and if the Alpha is a jerk or worse, it doesn’t change that instinct.
6) But despite all of this, we can do better. I’m just not sure how.
Your great-grandfather is my new super-hero. True class.
Thanks!
Thanks for including my essay, David. Your post reminds me of the conundrum at the heart of Willa Cather's *A Lost Lady*. Captain Daniel Forrester represents noblesse oblige, but his values are challenged by the new generation led by Ivy Peters, an opportunistic attorney and real estate speculator.
I do want to say that my own recent meditation on simplicity isn't quite interchangeable with virtue. I prefer simplicity, but I realize that my children have different desires (as I did at their ages). I really don't want to shame them for the things they want, but I try to teach them gratitude and moderation along the way. Certainly there are forms of frugality that are too rigid to be virtuous.
Willa Cather herself tried to share her financial success with her neighbors and friends in Red Cloud, Nebraska. But I recall one example that has always rankled. Cather kept in touch with her childhood friend Annie Pavelka, a Czech woman who inspired the great *My Ántonia*, and even sent generous gifts, such as a mechanical washing machine. But Cather joked that the family ought to call it "Willie's Washer," which is where the story turns sour for me. It's hard to be generous and not want credit, but virtue to me requires taking the "I" out of it.
Thanks Josh for the comment!
Here's a famous ranking of giving by the Jewish philosopher Maimonides, which i think you'll find interesting.
"Maimonides defines eight levels in giving charity (tzedakah), each one higher than the preceding one.
On an ascending level, they are as follows:
8. When donations are given grudgingly.
7. When one gives less than he should, but does so cheerfully.
6. When one gives directly to the poor upon being asked.
5. When one gives directly to the poor without being asked.
4. Donations when the recipient is aware of the donor's identity, but the donor still doesn't know the specific identity of the recipient.
3. Donations when the donor is aware to whom the charity is being given, but the recipient is unaware of the source.
2. Giving assistance in such a way that the giver and recipient are unknown to each other. Communal funds, administered by responsible people are also in this category.
1. The highest form of charity is to help sustain a person before they become impoverished by offering a substantial gift in a dignified manner, or by extending a suitable loan, or by helping them find employment or establish themselves in business so as to make it unnecessary for them to become dependent on others."
It’s not a noble feeling to want to throw a drink in another person’s face, but I get it. Prior to the 1900's, a glove upside the face got the offenders attention. Our founding fathers were known to duel outside the congress building, and in the old west, gunfights determined who won and lost.
All to often today, the rich and famous don't care for anyone but themselves. If the entertainers that have multi-billion dollar mansions wanted to, they could build homeless shelters and food kitchens for those who live out of the street. They could build detox and rehab centers for those on alcohol and drugs. But they don't, instead, they get on Xwitter and virtue signal.
As a writer, I always try to show how those who do have material riches should treat those who don't. They should be honorable, helpful, considerate, and give back to their communities.
Back in the day, owners of corporations built roads, schools and hospitals, so that those who lived around them could get around and get help. they worked hard to train the next generation in working principles.
And they did it without bragging about it.