I'll be 73 this year. I've spent a lifetime fighting U.S. hegemony. Do I qualify as a "moral hero"? What better cause?
2
Mr. Brooks,
We need more people like you and Colby and Damon. I always remember the oneness or togetherness to blow away the loneliness of life as John Donne put it, "One man death diminishes me!" By the way, John McCain is living his life that way.
3
Thank you for an inspiriting and thoughtful article about moral heroes. Here in Claremont, CA. the Napier Initiative (napierinitiative.org) links Claremont College students with retired adults whose 'moral leadership' as clergy, social service professionals, and humanitarians has been devoted to seeking social justice. Under the auspices of the Napier Initiative and the five Claremont Colleges (Pitzer, Pomona, Scripps, Claremont McKenna and Harvery Mudd) students and elders learn from and inspire each other. Elders take courage in knowing that youthful leaders will continue to carry out such important work. And students learn that a life of service and optimism is one of the deepest satisfaction and joy, regardless of the struggles.
7
I think there’s something weird going on here. David Brooks paints a picture of beings who just do the right thing naturally, easily. They are a special breed apart he says. He can tell who has character and who doesn’t. I think life is a path. We are all given choices along this path. Do right. Do wrong. Or don’t know right from wrong. He keeps looking for this idolized mistake-free person that does not exist. (I think Donald Trump thinks he’s that person.)
2
Go see the documentary on Pipe Franicis weather or not you are a Catholic to learn who is a moral hero . The simplicity of this is wonderful.
4
I know such a person. This woman who raised 10 kids as a single mom living in poverty spent the last 18 years of her life in a bed looking at an eight-foot ceiling. Her mission was to show love to every person she met and so she did. The people she came in contact with, of course, exited the nursing home. Although my mom never understood it, that's when the power of her small act of love multimplied.
7
To me, the real “moral heroes” are those who are pushing for our government to step up to the plate and do its duty, which is defined in the US Constitution as acting FOR THE PEOPLE.
Mr. Brooks and others on the right wing would have us believe that “fighting poverty” or “caring for the sick” is the purview of morally upstanding volunteers rather than the government. In that sense, this column is yet another attempt at distortion. So for the sake of the clarity that Brooks is trying to hide: fighting poverty and making healthcare affordable are the government’s job. If individuals want to help, that’s great. But the government has a duty to get that job done. And yet the Republican party is doing everything it can to dismantle whatever we have.
Vote in the primaries and in November and get rid of morally downlying individuals who want to abandon us all so that billionaires, banks, and corporations can cut their tax bills.
21
I would hope that "moral heroes" also tend to use "we" versus "I," if ever asked about their efforts.
5
Extolling the admirable qualities of moral heroes is not the same thing as admitting that these deluded, wrong-headed heroes, tilting at windmills, have achieved great good. This is just a subtle form of do-gooder derogation, the weapon of choice for conservative attacks on Brooke's moral heroes.
1
For once in a David Brooks column, nothing to argue with, though none of this is really news to some of us.
5
There's a couple I know. They're Hispanic, and poor. They have 3 kids. She works at a Starbucks in San Francisco. He works at a deli (behind the counter), also in San Francisco. Somehow they got their kids into San Francisco schools. They live in Stockton, CA, about 90 miles from San Francisco. Her shift starts at 6am. His, at the deli, goes from 10AM until 7PM. Their daily routine: 1. Get up at 4:30AM, transfer kids from beds at home to mattress in minivan. Drive to Starbucks in San Francisco, drop her off for work. 2. He takes kids to school, then gets a little shut-eye before going to work at 10:00. 3. She gets off at 2:00, takes minivan and picks up kids from school. 4. Kids do homework in minivan. 5. At around 7:15, they all drive home to Stockton, arriving around 9:00PM. I don't know when they eat. They do. Morally heroic? More or less daily life for millions of Americans? Watcha think?
15
Trump is the moral hero of the majority of the GOP. That's just a fact.
2
David Brooks is a fraud. He says he doesn't want to be like Trump. But Trump and Brooks are both Republicans. So they both ultimately share almost ALL the same values in spite of the differences in their styles.
The world has very few "moral heroes." The word "hero" itself has become completely meaningless because today everyone is a "hero." But I know who my heroes are.
They are people like the Jesuit brothers who serve refugees and migrants in places like Lampedusa.
They are people like Jimmy Carter. Considered a failed president by many Americans, in his 90s and suffering. Carter, who had to leave the Southern Baptists to get away from that group's anti-Christ teachings, is the world's leading championing for women's rights.
They are people like Malala Yousafzai, a Pakistani Muslim who is barely an adult.
And for the record, I am an atheist. But at least I'm not a Republican like Brooks or Trump. I would rather go to hell than live with some hatred and intolerance and bigotry in my soul.
9
Jay, what do you think you’re living with if not hatred and intolerance and bigotry? And that’s as good a definition of hell as any I’ve heard. There’s a great deal of difference between Brooks and Trump, reasons for identifying as a Republican — like fiscal responsibility and national security — that don’t deserve your unhinged vitriol. My 65-year-do husband still considers himself a Republican, although he hasn’t voted for a Republican for President since the first George Bush.
3
Excellent piece David, it is no Pollyanna fairytale, a few comments.
Using Washington and Lincoln as the ultimate role models re Presidents and CICs re your column, here are my thoughts.
Actually Washington and Lincoln did like "pleasure", ie the trappings of the office. Washington married into one of the wealthiest families in America and Lincoln was certainly upwardly mobile. He was no Mother Theresa. There is nothing wrong with that in either case.
You correctly pointed out many of the traits of the great ones. It is especially true of Lincoln re expanding goals and healing.
First he saved us and the first democracy in 2,500 yrs. and then when he saw he could legally do it, he ended slavery. Also in his sacred 2nd inag. speech he referred to what you stated when he said, "bind up the wounds, care for the widow and the orphan, charity for all, malice towards none".
How would Washington or Lincoln have handled Trump? Simple, address the legit issues he brought up like jobs, trade, immigration, chastise him when anything he said was clearly anti American, not anti Democratic Party. Also only impeaching him, if something comes out of the Mueller probe that most can clearly agree is criminal, then do it, otherwise not.
Like he said towards the end of the Civil War, only punish the worst, don't go on a witch hunt.
3
Contrast their attitudes with that of your conservative friends, whose entire argument against taxes basically boils down to the assumption that unless very wealthy people are allowed to keep more of their money, their motivation to work will be less, BECAUSE forcing them to help provide services to others less fortunate does not make them as happy as having the money to spend on themselves and their heirs.
The gospel of entitlement and greed is the one preached by your party and your supposedly honorable friends in congress, and there is no purer evidence of that than their desire to abolish the estate tax. Not even death can cure them of their greed.
9
I see many eccentric cranks, opposed to progress, who fit Mr. Brooks's criteria. E.g., "they didn’t overthink their decision" (or much contemplate it at all, seized as they were with a romantic fervor), had "simplicity of moral response" (I'm right, you're wrong), "have a ‘This is what I do’ mentality" (regardless of any contrary evidence), "don’t talk much about personal happiness" (because, for predictable reasons, they're not very happy), "respond with an instinctive and sometimes reckless series of ‘yeses’ ” (but, often enough, with an obdurate series of "nos"), and are "integrated around one single-minded moral cause" (yes, close-minded, stubborn, obsessed, unyielding, and thus supremely irritating to others with more receptive minds).
I speak from experience. We mountain bikers are trying to get more reasonable access to narrow trails—not at others' expense, but a fairer arrangement. We are beset by curmudgeons who think a wheel of any kind on a trail—even a stroller for infants—is the work of the Devil. Basically, they are Puritans opposed to people having fun and, one senses, to many kinds of human flourishing.
In yesterday's WSJ, a columnist opined that young people should find boring jobs, make money, gain influence, and change the world that way, rather than embark on a low-paid calling. He overstated his case. Mr. Brooks doesn't overstate his case at all; he identifies the mindset very accurately, but overlooks its dark side.
3
I’m 68 and I have not seen much of history’s arc of justice. Justice seems to show a tendency of flux....some eras have more or less justice and optimism. A moral hero might understand this reality.
“We see them tirelessly serving the poor or risking their lives for democracy and think they are performing great acts of self-sacrifice, but it doesn’t feel that way to them”
Are they risking their lives for democracy? I imagine they might be more interested in simply attending to and helping others period...democracy might be one goal but I think most of us are concerned about living in more than decent homes, feeding our children, access to health care, etc. A functioning democracy might help those goals or as we witness now, might not.
David, as usual, with his good intentions in full view, gets it about 180 degrees wrong. First of all, anybody who has done even minimal research into the truth of Mother Teresa realizes what a frightening and abominable character she was. Christopher Hitchens exposed her once and for all, I had thought, so many persist in seeing her as some sort of moral paragon. Please read even a little bit more about her. I pity those who suffered under her "loving care."
Secondly, I find it fond that you and many others believe that moral heroes are so very "good" through and through, and don't even need to struggle with our same human traits and faults. That the mantle of heroism just floats naturally onto their shoulders, when in reality many of them battled their own natures, even hid their doubts and failures and were often small-minded and even personally unlovable rather than saintly and grandly heroic, despite their eventual place in history. They were human beings and not angels. The fact that they found a way to transcend their limitations and made their lives shine makes them all the more amazing. It doesn't mean they didn't have limitations or have to fight against the temptation of giving up, giving in, or being bought off. That they surmounted these lures or cowardices is what's best about them.
9
Author is way off on this one. He writes about historic figures like MLK or GHANDI, well known for roles they played in furthering a cause, like British imperialism in the case of GHANDHI, the struggle to free the subcontinent from the RAJ, or in the case of MLK, his willingness to put his life on the line for the sake of oppressed African Americans, mainly in the former Confederate states of the Deep South or "le Sud profond."But when I think of heroes, I think of my late sister, who, despite suffering from cancer, looked after my pets when I was laid up, foot in a cast from an injury sustained while on assignment in Senegal years ago. I think of the good hearted souls who give up everything to go down to P.R.to rescue abandoned dogs in ISLA DE LOS SOTOS. I think of the brave folk, currently featured in Times newspaper, fighting an almost hopeless struggle against powerful real estate interests, or of African women working back breaking days for few c.f.a. to buy enough rice to feed their families, and who, in so many cases, are victims of the cruel ritual of fgm to boot. These are life's everyday heroes, anonymous for the most part, but whose heroic courage on the battlefield of life should also be praised. Brooks's essay is too academic, too ivory towerish from an otherwise excellent writer and essayist.
4
While I am greatly inspired by so-called 'moral heroes' and appreciated aspects of this article, I am not willing to absolve myself or anyone else of the responsibility to do the right thing. Heroes are not separate from ourselves; they are not other-worldly beings, they are not Superman or Wonder Woman in the real world, they are just ordinary people who choose to make a sequence tiny choices, one after the other, to do the right thing.
We regular folk are not off the hook. We need to save ourselves and our society by making a sequence of tiny but important choices: to say "that's not okay" or "#metoo" or "can I help?" Voting can be a heroic choice. Mowing your neighbor's lawn can be, too (especially if they are elderly or have a broken leg). So can volunteering for schools or candidates or the homeless or the arts or just about a million other great causes.
It'd be great if Mueller saved us (please oh please oh please) but if everyone gave up the idea of heroes as others, we could ALL just do the right thing, one tiny step at a time. I still believe that if every American voted, we'd have different results and that we'd find them more palatable than the current situation.
We could all be heroes and rescue ourselves if we stopped looking for someone else to save us.
9
"Do right and risk the consequences", Sam Houston, Tennessee then Texas.
2
David,
What about the high example of Christ?Just also “somebody”?
2
Lots of complaining in the comment thread today. What's the matter with these unsatisfied readers?
Don't they understand that without David Brooks to earnestly lecture us on moral philosophy, and without Ross Douthat to earnestly lecture us on the immutable virtues of the Roman Catholic faith, and without Bret Stephens to earnestly lecture us on the inherent kindness & nobility of the Likud government, we'd all remain the corrupt, ignorant, amoral barbarians we've been for decades.
Neither Brooks, nor Douthat, nor Stephens seems ever to have come across this line by W.H. Auden:
"Love your crooked neighbor with your crooked heart."
9
What a hypocritical piece from someone who did not cheer all the good that President Obama did in his two terms despite despicable sabotage from the writers immoral Republican Party. If you stand for what you are “reviewing” in your article you would support everyone but the people you cheered for in the past. Charitable in theory, that is so easy and frankly tacky.
11
What David describes here are people often are personally modest and optimists, driven to participate in goals larger than their own lives.
Mother Teresa is a prime example, as are those who establish housing, sustainable gardening for people in ghettos, and childcare or education for the disadvantaged.
It is the antithesis of our Secretary of HUD or Education.
2
A hero is someone that helps someone else without regard to their own safety or any reward. A airline pilot that is doing their job is not a hero. A person that can put a ball in a basket is not a hero.
If these people, doing what they do do selflessly, fills you with admiration, how on Earth can you continue to be a Republican? The party of greed, faux piousness, and "pull yourself up by your bootstraps, never mind that you have no boots," creates the brutal policies that makes these generous people have to do what they do, and makes sure that, no matter how much they do, it is never enough.
Perhaps you pursue Republican policies because you yourself are so generous as to want to create all of these opportunities for heroic people? Are you worried that more humane policies will rob these people of their chance to shine? It is sort of like those who admired Mother Teresa for her "selfless" work, without noticing that she herself ensured that the work would continue to be required by refusing to allow birth control into the population she served. It is a peculiarly self-serving form of admiration; it allows you, Mr. Brooks, to make yourself appear concerned for the poor without actually doing anything to change the systems that perpetuate their poverty.
1
Moral Heroes? Consider this…
“It takes so much to be a full human being that there are very few who have the enlightenment or the courage to pay the price…. One has to abandon altogether the search for security and reach out to the risk of living with both arms. One has to accept pain as a condition of existence. One has to court doubt and darkness as the cost of knowing. One needs a will stubborn in conflict, but apt always to total acceptance of every consequence of living and dying.”
--Morris L. West, “The Shoes of a Fisherman”
1
From George Bernard Shaw's letter to Arthur Bingham Walkley, which introduces Man and Superman:
"This is the true joy in life, the being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; the being a force of nature instead of a feverish, selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy."
4
Being a so-called moral hero presumes some sort of purity. People are not purely moral and good. That’s impossible.
We are in this society surrounded, generally, by corruption and greed, venality and amoral behavior. To be a moral person, one need have a sense of equal justice for all, and connectedness to all of humanity. Only a few achieve that.
2
I too am fortunate enough to work with a good number of these people. Many observers would (and have) called them "saints", but to a person I think these folks would vehemently deny that title. The cynic in me that excludes me from membership in this venerated 'club' notes wryly that it's painfully easy to spot the impostors, those who would "do good" so long at it shows up in social media or a resume. I count myself lucky to have been afforded a front seat to those that work to save humanity. It makes for a good day.
1
This column sounds more like a book report or an article written for a self-help magazine. It is missing any heart or soul. I am not convinced that Brooks actually believes this. It is so antithetical to those he continues to support. Brooks, do YOU have what it takes to become a moral hero?
3
Poor Mr. Brooks. He neglected to mention that only progressives can be heroes. Just like feminists.
1
People change very quickly all the time. Like a Roman poet once said, no one's identity is ever completely safe. But this whole article can sum up the people it's speaking of with two things: self-denial and compassion. And these things take emotional intelligence, which is a form of sense. Compassion is perhaps the chief and only law of human nature.
1
And they don’t care whether anyone knows their name or not.
7
Mr. Brooks, I would agree with most of your opinion piece except for the mention of Mother Teresa who's dogmatic catholic teaching's regarding birth control set India back centuries. Her misguided efforts to help the orphans of the country could as easily been alleviated by promoting contraceptives rather than abstinence.
Mr. Brooks, I can agree with most of this piece except for your mention of Mother Teresa whose dogmatic Catholic teaching's on birth control set India back by centuries. Overpopulated, corrupt, misogynistic, racist, India with it's attempt at modernization while doing nothing to alleviate the problems of the less fortunate amongst them is appalling and inhumane. Nevertheless, I believe you should send copies to all the republicans in office, especially their ignorant leader, and to anti-Americans like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson, among others.
Here we go again. Mr. Brooks writing a pious, moralistic and sacrosanct column for and about the common man amidst the gut wrenching decomposition of power, government and civic live in our country. Such decomposition lead by the most horrendous "leader" and a party whose morality, credibility and has completely crumbled.
Wake up Mr. Brooks! Your party, and more and more yourself as you come up with excuses or distractions such as this, have loss the right to preach to us about values such as those in your article. I used to think you were a man worth of reading.
7
A morally courageous society is built from the bottom up, not just the top down.
In times of despicable national leaders, it is important to remember that we still can and do have moral courage in people at all levels of society.
4
Moral courage is great and all, but Brooks and his fellow conservatives don't think giving up a pay day is worth it. Unless he considers oil companies and other multi-national corporations to be moral heroes?
4
As our Nation is led into the amoral chasm of unregulated self interest oblivious to the harm inflicted on our children, families, fellow citizens and our schools and communities and environment we face a choice. Do we tolerate this current abuse of power in the White House and the halls of Congress, do we remain silent, do we retreat in despair and disgust or do we confront the enemies of our representative democracy with the treason they commit that destroys our Nation and its egalitarian and collaborative role with all our fellow citizens of our Nation and the world? The attacks on those who challenge this rape of our Nation will continue if we dare not to rise to confront these marauders who steal our Nation from us. "We the people" must stand united against the deceitful, self serving, reckless traitors to democracy and our freedoms. We must as one Nation under God strive to uphold the ideals on which we were founded that announced to the world that, "We the people in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." We, the citizens of our once glorious democracy, must rise once more in defense of liberty for us all. "Let freedom ring"..."Let freedom ring".
2
Based on Mr. Brooks' definition, I've noticed that women, especially, and an awful lot of quiet men have been moral heroes for a mighty, mighty long time -- quietly getting the moral work done.
Men in power seem to need some kind of public recognition and frequent reinforcement (not even shaming seems to make a difference: witness Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Nunes, et al -- since they get all the reinforcements they desire from the Faux News Propaganda Network).
The Times and Brooks need to call out the ones who moral midgets more often and more publicly since they're not being moral and not being heroes.
Stop being a doormat.
Meanwhile the real heroes do keep doing the moral work without platform, publicity, hype.
1
Most of the people I have met who have the qualities Brooks is lauding here call themselves Socialists or communists. The ones I’ve me who identify as religious embrace some sort of liberation theology. I don’t think the left has a monopoly on these qualities, but in a capitalist society that celebrates individual acquisition of wealth the people who have them tend to gravitate to an anti-capitalist outlook, a recognition that the amoral prioritization of profit demanded by competition within markets is fundamentally at odds with doing the right thing by the poor majority of humanity.
The truth is that most people have these qualities to one degree or another. They just get suppressed in most of us in the course of our socialization into a system which rewards the mean, the selfish and the ruthless.
Brooks has spent his adult life as an ideological apologist for this system, sprinkling perfume on its stench and peddling dubious or unscalable market-based solutions as panaceas to problems readily solved by progressive taxation and social spending proportionate to the needs. His recent taste for meditations on morality seems to have more to do with salving his own conscience than with doing what needs to be done to actually reduce, my ch less eliminate, poverty and social and economic inequality.
104
You, sir, are part of the problem. Please Mr. Brooks, carry on. The world is full of Christophers and not enough of you, Mr. Brooks!
6
Oh good grief! What nonsense, claiming one has to be a socialist or Communist to exhibit moral courage.
8
Socialists and communists have done so many good things helping the poor and equalizing society in Venezuela. The rich have been punished,their ill gotten wealth confiscated. Lets do the same with the Koch brothers and their ilk. Surely heroic morally superior leftist here shall prevail bringing happiness and contentment to America.
6
This lets me out. See paragraph 5. I am interested in worldly success. I am interested in myself. Period.
2
Brooks whistles and looks the other way as civilization collapses.
3
Was all this just made up 'cause David was "wondering" about something?
I mean, it seems phoned-in when you quote the rather questionable Mother Theresa as some kind of example from one book you used to "organize your thinking on this subject", rather than all these "moral heroes" you've "been around".
2
How has DB become the most uninteresting voice among all pundits? #Sabbatical
1
You devote an entire, thoughtful article to morals, yet you seem to ignore the fact that we have the most immoral human being running the country and of course, your party.
4
You are one of these heroes in my book Sir. That you can write this in the age of trump shows your character. We needed that. Tikkun Olam!
2
Mr. Brooks, why do you write hypocritical columns like this one?
Moral heroes? Hmm? I'll list some for you:
Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader and Constitutional fire-starter.
Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives and architect of the laughable Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
John Boehner, former Speaker of the House of Representatives and steadfast opponent of President Barack Obama's legislative agenda between 2009-2015.
Judge Roy Moore, former U.S. Senate candidate from Alabama and alleged child chaser.
Vatican Ambassador Newton Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives and adulterer in his Capitol Hill office while his wife lay dying.
Former president Ronald Reagan, author of the failed American experiment as "government is the problem."
A.L.E.C., or the collective American Legislative Executive Council, the engineers of a right-wing plutocracy at the local and federal levels.
Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the American Rifle Association. Newton and Parkland and Santa Fe aren't on his conscience.
Michael "Six" Pence, vice-president of the United States: "I'm a Christian, a Conservative and a Republican. In that order."
Donald Trump, president of the United States. Admitted sexual predator; serial liar; serial adulterer; apologist for white supremacists ("very fine people"); apologist for authoritarian dictators and their "governments."
Of course, Mr. Brooks, these Republicans are not moral heroes. Neither are you for looking the other way.
7
Humble humane empathy is the ultimate enduring humane human moral virtue. Doing some moral good does not mean being morally all good. Our strenghs and weaknesses are inseparable
There are costs and benefits to every human endeavor.
David Brooks inane insufferable meandering and wandering off into the advice columnist territory of 'Dear Abby' and 'Ask Ann Landers' is camouflage cover for his socioeconomic political biases.
2
Rome is burning and Brooks is floating in higher spheres.
Silly.
4
They're also not interested in long-winded ruminations in lieu of deeds and commitment.
2
What is an "inferior pleasure"?
2
And why would it be weird to be oblivious to one?
1
Brooks is a Conservative. Looking at his party, I would suggest Brooks write about something he actually knows about.
5
At first I thought Mr. Brooks' latest book report was just another example of his tendency to sidestep political reality in the wake of the ascendence of Trump. David Brooks became appalled by the way Trump has refashioned the Republican Party and the conservative movement in his own image. However, with the choice of _Some Do Care_, Brooks has taken his evasion to a whole new level. Colby and Harmon's book was first published in 1992. In the intervening quarter century, the socio-political landscape has been utterly transformed.
The moral heroes we need in 2018 are of a different order from those in 1992. The Trump administration routinely scapegoats communities who are not part of his base, in order to reassure the base that "their" president is fully invested in their interests. Never mind that the administrations policies are actually hurting all but the wealthiest Americans in myriad ways. The rank corruption of the "pay-to-play" Trump administration is a daily assault on our sensibilities. And then there is Russia, which clearly sought the election of Trump, and succeeded beyond its wildest expectations. Through it all, Republicans in Congress have done little to curb Trump, while conservative media outlets and the commentariat cheer for this administration. It's bad enough that David Brooks is largely unwilling to confront the failure of leadership the Republicans now represent, but now even the solutions he proposes are irrelevant to the contemporary moment.
5
Uh oh. Brooks has been reading again and can't wait to let us all know his manufactured insights into a problem.
3
Some of these people are not what they appear to be. Mother Teresa was a dreadful person. Greedy, corrupt and cruel. See Hitchen's takedown of her:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/10/m...
Some of these do-gooders are all that Brooks describes, except they are stupid. They mean to do good, but they sow chaos instead. Hammarskjold's analogy is misguided. You have to watch your step when you walk. Don't stare at the horizon, or you will trip and fall.
I do not trust idealists.
1
Down here in the real world, your party is working very hard to make the planet uninhabitable and this country a dictatorship run by the minions of the 1%. Perhaps you could focus on the real world as a penance for your sin of complicity.
10
Mr. Brooks fiddles on his single loose string of
personal morality while the Republic burns.
3
As we’ve noticed for the past few months, Mr. Brooks, a long-time and reverent conservative apologist just cannot seem to write about relevant and topical events, so he wanders off to “nice” and “comfortable” matters, while the republic, which he use to feel so strongly about, is failing due his party’s leader.
2
David Brooks you have become irrelevant, you're writing is irrelevant. You haven't come to grips with the Republican Party that has moved away from your ideology. You're lost and it's time for you to find your way.
2
With your lifelong advocacy, support, cheerleading, championing, apologies for, rationalizations, and excuses for 40 years of Republican efforts to destroy our democracy, turn our nation's wealth over to their one percent owners and reduce Americans to impoverished serfs, you are the last person who should be writing about moral heroes. Guess you have nothing more to say about our mafia don buffoon president, who, far from being a freak anomaly, is in fact, everything you and your party have been about for almost a half century: racism, xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny, theft, lies, slander, demonization (of which you have played your part, sir) warmongering, and as of 2016, we can add eight years of seditious obstructionism and treason to the list. No wonder you are penning these inane sociological columns of late. What you should be writing, if you had any conscience or shame, is a massive apology to the American People for promoting a criminal cabal whose only purpose is to destroy government so they steal everything that isn't nailed down. Oh, but I forgot: Republicans have no shame.
4
Hypocrisy, thy name is Brooks.
3
And space in the NYT is devoted to this why, exactly?
3
It's a beautiful day inside my bubble
A beautiful day for a fantasy
Would you be mine?
Could you be mine?
Won't you get stoned with me?
Hey everybody! It’s time for "Mr. Brooks Bubble"! Let’s all hold hands and go inside!
Wow! Everything is perfect in here! Nothing is out of place; not a speck of dust anywhere! And the air smells so fresh and invigorating! That’s ‘cause Mr. Brooks has his own line of custom made air-fresheners – today he’s using “Saintly Mist”! Gosh it’s so energizing – makes me want to go out and do goods works! Me too! I’m going to perform a miracle! Look! Mr. B has so many different fragrances! You can put one in your house! Here’s one called “Yankee Candle”! It makes you feel patriotic and want to jump on a horse and ride through the streets shouting: “The British are coming!” And here’s another one called “Kumbaya” – one whiff and your soul becomes one with all the other souls on earth! It’s a global group hug! Oh boy, that would feel good!
That Mr. Brooks is really creative – and I mean that with a capital “C”! Gee! It’s time to go! Everybody take an air-freshener! Thanks Mr. B.! See you next time!
4
wow. Never thought I'd see the day when a NYT columnist times would list "overthinking" as a fault. But it does goes hand in hand with the author's use of "who" as the object of the verb. Guess great writers don't overthink grammar.
1
I am a retired teacher and now work as an EMT in a volunteer fire department. I am back in school trying to become an advanced EMT, and I have been struggling. Lately I have been questioning the wisdom of taking on this challenge when I could be relaxing in my retirement. It's probably wrong of me to think I see a bit of myself in this column, but it meant a lot to me. Thank you. I'm going to study now.
6
If David's column only inspires YOU to complex that worthwhile goal, the column is worthwhile and has achieved good for our society.
Stay the course! And thank you for all the help you will provide to desperate people as you respond to 911 calls.
2
An informative column, written by a man who can read a book and distill the contents for the rest of us. I suppose it helps to be highly paid to do it, but still it can be looked as a kind of public service for readers of his columns. It's hard to dispute that.
4
David, I heard you on PBS Newshour justifying Israel use of force on unarmed civilians (irrespective of their affiliation with Hamas). The moral heroes are absent in Israel, otherwise they would not have allowed anything like this to happen.
7
Mr. Brooks: Do you consider yourself a moral hero? I hope not, I hope you have the capability for introspection that allows you to see that you are not among the hero’s you describe. In fact, you epitomize some of the key failings that these men have overcome. Instead of truth seeking you have spent your life apologizing for the type of politics that the Republican Party has been practicing for a generation. You have compounded this moral failing by equivocating the behavior of the democrats to the historic faults of the Republicans. You are part of the moral brainwashing that the Republicans have counted on in the mainstream media to normalize their increasingly vicious attacks on the community represented under the constitution. It is hard to tell whether you honestly are clueless to your bias or whether you are a coward using your position for personal gain no matter what the consequences. But your choice of an article about those who have displayed moral heroism suggests that you might be having pangs of conscience from a growing awareness of the damage your white washing has done. Maybe it indicates that you could someday work your way toward an enlightenment and a courage that could make you a hero as well. Here’s hoping that your better angels have the last word.
7
Why presume David is talking about himself and not admiring those he sees who have moral courage?
2
David Brooks continues to descend into moralizing. I guess it is a common enough Republican coping strategy. But still.
6
Picking through the word salad of platitudes and cliches, Brooks seems to be advocating a selflessness on behalf of citizens who are victims of a corrupt, self-serving and punitive government led by a cowardly mad man.
If Brooks wants to be a moral hero himself he should use his lofty perch to jump into the fray and not publish his tedious summations of virtue.
5
I was caught by the emphasis on non-profit and activist type roles as the sole holders of the moral high ground. I have seen a number of people in business and healthcare who base their work around a commitment to doing good and to making a positive contribution to society. They share many if not all of the traits outlined in the editorial. Is it less valuable to devote your life to making a business effective and efficient in its responsibility to meet a need in society? I think not.
3
My husband’s oncologist is one. He might receive a decent check every week, but his life’s work emanates from his soul. My daughter is a social worker. Same thing, except for the decent check. I believe it’s hard wired (God’s gift?).
2
Extraordinarily perceptive column. TY.
2
Totally agree - who among us does not admire people who display moral courage, except of course, you know who?
1
It’s the old “thousand points of light” gimmick:
Oh! if only Americans would volunteer more, then hunger and homelessness would be eliminated. What’s that you say? You want to raise taxes on the rich a few percentage points to help pay for that??? Nope, That’s a communism.
7
I agree some moral courage on your part in calling out the clown circus, instead of the David Brooks “I have a dream” speech.
1
David your definition of moral purity does not exist. It is a rigid ideal which you idolize that appears to keep you from recognizing the goodness in the everyday people all around you. The many, many kindnesses that you I’m sure are shown on a daily basis — unless you’re a hermit — from the humans that you undoubtedly come in contact with. The ones which you are apparently oblivious to and unwilling to appreciate while you idolize the few “good people” who somehow fit through your narrow definition of morally heroic. The rest of the infinitesimal human goodness of the world — the real connected fabric of humanity— could never qualify for the “godlike” status of morality as you so define it. But all these small acts of kindness and care by so many are connected in a way that more than a rare and lonely ideal. It is real, it is ordinary, and it is Love. Whether you personally choose to connect to this critical mass, or to see it, or to appreciate it, it is a goodness that is much larger and much more powerful and impactful than your few qualified heroes. And they are the connected fabric of human decency and integrity that will restore this country. I hope you can get off your pedestal and join the human race in that common, communal way.
2
Very insightful piece I enjoyed reading. A picture of a one time community organizer and our last President, Barack Obama, came immediately to mind when I was reading this piece.
I would love to read an essay by Mr. Brooks on the flip side of this equation - what those who live to perpetuate immorality have in common as attributes. Perhaps contrast Caligula, Hitler and Trump to get a historical perspective on commonalities of evil.
8
One of the great leaders of our time is resurrecting Dr. King's “Poor People's Campaign” and taking it to Washington, as well as state capitols around the country.
The Rev. William Barber II is elevating the fight against poverty and racism by calling for a national moral revival. Like the moral leaders you champion in your article, he embodies a fierce optimism in the face of extreme personal hardship and daunting political headwinds.
He has already changed the political climate in his native North Carolina through the Moral Mondays Movement in response to the economically devastating Republican takeover of state politics there. Now he aims to make it a national movement.
His is an ambitious agenda, but he has formed strong coalitions of people from diverse backgrounds and from a spectrum of religious beliefs. If America as an ideal is to be saved, it is by people like Rev. Barber, who work tirelessly to make it so.
Why don’t you use your bully pulpit, Mr. Brookes, and join him on the front lines?
https://www.poorpeoplescampaign.org/
2
This column seems incomplete. Having described some of the characteristics that would define a moral hero, you stop short of addressing HOW one can change his/her life to step onto your path of heroism. Perhaps, if you could give some examples (perhaps more recent than Sakharov) so that you illustrate how your criteria work in the modern-day world.
Some examples that come to mind --
Jimmy Carter, who emerged from a failed presidency to engage in his own selfless cause for other human beings.
Emma Gonzales, and the other survivors, who are showing by force of will and dedicated energy that real change in the world is possible.
In other words, Davey, you need to get off the fence and engage in the real world. Don't write a book report on Colby and Damon's book, but instead take that step you rarely take and demonstrate that your random musings, in the end, can amount to more than random musings.
2
“Davey”?...sounds like someone is feeling badly and needs to strike out.
2
Be the change you want to see....
Mr. Brooks, you are not a hero. You have supported a party, politicians and agendas that are the antithesis of heroism. If you believe what you're writing your next editorial should be about calling out the anti-heroes in your party and the administration. And maybe a truth telling about why it has taken you so long to do the right thing.
Look around. We are surrounded by heroes who every day are performing heroic acts. They are distinguished by service to others, the needy and poor and overcoming huge impediments to triumph and do good.
Citing the common sense descriptors of someone else's hero criteria doesn't do it. What is needed is not theoretical but applied heroism.
Be the change you want to see!...
5
The abstractions in this column don't seem particularly useful or instructive. The forces of inequality may not be more fiercely arrayed against positive change than they were in past struggles; but they sure are better organized and better funded. The playing field has never seemed less level, the game never less fair. Are Mr. Brooks's bromides supposed to give us the strength to go out and fight anyway? Weak brew; very weak. Not much real nourishment here.
2
Recently, I've been unlucky enough to listen to many "thought leaders" whose ideas I regard as morally devoid. I've been wondering what traits these thought leaders have in common.
First, they don't overthink their logic. False equivalency in the service of partisanship rules the day. Corruptly attacking the foundations of democracy is bad... but who leaked that attack, eh.
At some point, somebody planted an unrealistic ideal in this person's head, that all this nation needs is volunteerism, charity, community centers. Government services, healthcare, schooling, police, safety standards, those will all magically follow.
They have a weird obliviousness to analysis in areas on which they have already made up their minds. This is because their self-identity is fused with an ideal - 1950's and 60's America (sexism, racism, poor safety, etc., not considered).
Column inches devoted to current events is inversely proportional to their ability to defend what they say they support
They have a "strong back" - members of their "tribe" will support their positions irregardless of the content of those positions.
They tend to possess an insane level of optimism, a belief that handing the most powerful country on earth on a platter to a corrupt sociopathic madman is worth it to get some (not well-examined) policy positions passed.
Finally, the direction of their lives moves invariably from openness to a single-minded moral cause that is, in truth, not moral.
1
David Brooks' column today, "What Moral Heroes are Made Of," reminded me of a statement made by the philosopher, Martin Buber: "The basic tendencies of Judaism: the striving for unity, deed, and future are the elements out of which a new world will be constructed."
2
They are definitely not the Republican Conservatives that run the country and abet Trump.
They are amoral ideologues and lack the skepticism and intellectual curiosity to make moral choices and question their beliefs. Without which there is no intellectual growth and no nobility and pragmatism.
Sometimes one must sacrifice power to do what is right.
They are unwilling to do this at all. It is their tainted legacy and our misfortune.
2
Enjoyable article that makes me wonder why these traits are either lacking in the majority of our leaders or doesn't exist at all.
1
How one was raised makes a big difference...as article states, by the time we are 18 yrs old our personalities are formed. Will it be all about “me”, or do I care enough for the less
fortunate?
2
We get it, Mr. Brooks. Goodness still exists, but so does evil.
Right now, in this country, evil has the upper hand. Look to your right, it's over there.
7
For me, doing the right thing is hard. I really want to lie on the couch and watch TV. But I am compelled every day to give more than I take. I wish it came naturally to me - but it doesn’t. I have a strong sense of what “the right thing” is, but it doesn’t make it any easier for me.
4
I almost want to reach across the table and hand David a joint and say, "Here..."
So, Mr. Brooks wants deep down inside to be a hippie.
Or does he say as long as there are people like this we don't need a strong federal government to level the playing fields and see to the safety nets.
Safety nets like environment safeguards against poisoning our water and air.
Safety nets like Social Security, Pensions, livable wages, affordable education.
I would dare say that no one Brooks is describing here is a member of the republican party or the cult of t rump.
5
I love this comment in the column:
"They are to moral life what lifelong learners are to intellectual life."
David, I will be thinking about that phrase for some time. Thank you!
4
I would like to share an observation from the comments on this piece, many of which feel similar to the reaction to a Dodge Super Bowl ad that featured a lengthy quote from a sermon by Dr. King.
I have noticed that many people can get jealous of someone who demonstrates greater wealth. Most of these people seem to get even more jealous of someone who demonstrates greater intelligence. But when someone demonstrates or calls for greater morality, look out!
Reconnecting this piece to the Dodge ad, anyone can serve. Almost anyone can be a moral hero when an acute need appears - if they are either naturally inclined to act this way or have prepared themselves to do so. Cultivating some of the personality traits mentioned in this article in ourselves and in our children is probably a worthwhile investment, and it may possibly be the most worthwhile investment.
4
Insightful. Threatened when someone dares to approach their perch on that high horse. Careful. Might topple over.
What are moral heroes made of? The exact opposite of almost every man and woman in charge of any position of authority, responsibility, and trust.
1
One wonders how Mr. Brooks feels about that thought. But we need not wonder much since he has been telling us for many years.
Whether intentionally or unconsciously, Mr. Brooks's choice of topics and his intellectual inquiries are often obscure enough to keep him from confronting head-on the very party to which he still belongs. This is a good article but it focuses short (or beyond, but not on) the depredations of the Republican regime.
4
@ Craig Avery. Mr. Brooks has no interest in the depredations of the Republican regime or our descent into autocracy. If he is occasionally obscure on other topics, on that subject he’s been clear.
4
Clear by omission. I don't think he has shown support for their agenda, just a sort of skirting around the entire issue of support or renunciation. A studied ignoring. Thanks for your comment.
It seems to me awfully generous to think that Mr. Brooks has been “unintentionally” oblivious of reality. One would have to be narcotized not to notice that the Republican Party has become, in the words of political scientists Ornstein and Mann, a “radical insurgency.” In their most recent writing on the subject, some of it for the Times, they have edged nearer to replacing the word radical with the word fascist. With his silence Mr. Brooks implicitly endorses the Republican Party’s path to single-party rule. We are nearly there. Everybody gets poorer except the rich, and they get richer. The Times noted this the other day in a story on recent income and wealth statistics. “Fascism,” said Mussolini, “is when you can’t slide a cigarette paper between government and business.” The Republican Party has been heading in that direction for close to five decades. I haven’t read every word Mr. Brooks has written or seen every television appearance, but it’s safe to say he hasn’t objected much. At a certain point, when you don’t object you become complicit.
I have always been uneasy about the cult of heroes and saints for the same reason Albert Camus advances in his great novel The Plague: these individuals are merely doing what all of us should be doing. To make them exceptional is to let the rest of us off the hook. Alas, in an age of Trump, I am finding it increasingly difficult to hold to the conviction that Camus expresses through the character Dr. Rieux, that is, there are more things to admire in people than to despise.
8
If David's definition of a moral hero includes "fighting poverty, [and] caring for the young or the sick," then he is clearly not referring to any Republican politicians. However, "single-mindedly dedicated to some cause" pretty much defines Republicans who go out of their way to lie about the benficiaries of the 2017 tax reform legislation, the causes of climate change, the meaning of the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution, and whether we should be concerned that foreign governments may have interfered with the 2016 election. Nor do Republican politicians appear to be overthinking their efforts to undermine respect for the rule of law, and thus the longterm viability of our polity.
9
The young students in Florida and elsewhere who cry out for gun reform are moral heroes. Peace Corps volunteers and others who strive to be of service are also signs of hope in a society distracted by selfish politicians.
10
Dorothy Day, the founder of the Catholic Worker, certainly would
fit Mr Brooks recipe for moral hero. "God understands us when we try to love" was a quote from her that gives spiritual backing to anyone trying to help others from civil rights to peace rights.
4
I think this columnist observed that Hillary Clinton was too likely to engage in corruption as president to merit our vote.
4
@ Chrisc. But wasn’t he so obviously correct? We have avoided all the horrors of corruption, endless investigations and the threat to democracy that were so clearly in our future and, thank goodness, never happened. How fortunate we were to have the prognostications of Mr. Brooks.
1
This article that tells us what makes, motivates, causes and implies those features and forces that become the gestalt of moral heroes...the mix and the makeup that is never truly intact nor complete unless it is doing what it does and almost...what it must to give the purpose that has been sought and searched for to do and be.
It is a fascinating insight and if anything, knowing the whys and wherefores that take people to where they are to become and do the things they do, makes me just wish and hope even more that we can have and get MORE of those and these that are the ones who have in them and hold the means to weave the best and strongest moral fibres that hold Society fast and help make it become better supporting and bonding itself as it performs stronger and gains greater resilience by their efforts, actions and ministrations.
These heroes that are the Glue and Substance but also the launch pad of a greater design and better outcome that their actions embedded into purpose become all our reasons , not just their own , to a better future met more strongly by the hope and real results of all they have done and continue to do.
These builders the moral infrastructure that keeps Society intact & better able to meet the vagaries that we too often bring upon ourselves and a future that delivers more challenges by the even greater consequences those vagaries may have grown into even greater.
These Moral Heroes. Who save us from ourselves, by
them-selves, one and all.
1
I would like to add another category of people not mentioned who deserve recognition. Capable of success in most positions public and private they choose public service. Most would do well, even exceptionally well in business. They have, however chosen public service and in particular, I would focus on the career civil servants of the US government.
They are seldom recognized for their dedication but do not seek it or publicity. Their careers span two, sometimes three decades and they carry in their combined efforts the day to day functioning of our government.
We are lucky to have them, particularly at this moment.
3
Thanks David. This column did a great job of explaining a set of traits I have observed in other people that I did not totally understand or appreciate.
3
Life is so short and the need so great. It seems natural to see humanity and the rest of nature as one organism needing our attention. If accumulating things is all there is at the expense of others and a moral responsible center, why live at all?
1
Heroes
Do you think that when we honor heroes at sporting events, we should have teachers and healthcare workers and others who help people stand up as well.
4
Don't get me wrong. I'm sure the people Brooks is praising this week do much good, but hie description of how and why they do it smells a lot like addiction. They don't care about consequences, want more and more, never enough, never quit. As with Brooks' weekly high from reading a book, these people seem addicted to the dopamine rush their actions give them.
3
The damage is already done. After Mr. Brooks colomun supporting Trumps economy he crossed the line. Its shamefully disenginuos for him to advise us on Moral Heroes. He's lost my trust.
After all these years, cololums and books I can no longer in good concscious trust his words.
2
I get a strong feeling that third-graders all know this intuitively, but some adults need to read and study it again.
4
This piece was helpful and gave me things to think about. But there's everything implied and nothing suggested that's relevant for the current reality. Who are today's moral heroes? What inspired this piece - a particular situation or event, or the overall perilous situation we are in? Also agree with others' comments that there are degrees of moral heroes - or even, of heroism of any kind. We can't all be moral heroes, or heroes, but we can just be darn good people who do the right (moral, just, fair, kind) things and treat others well.
1
Morality is a soft social science. Your morality is a function of culture, religion and social status. It is a collection of individual beliefs that may also be shared and practiced by a group. It is a discussion often held by philosophers with respect to the universality of morals. The Lord of the Flies explores the changing morality of school boys, stranded on an island. Regardless, morality is a creation of men that interact socially and is frequently expressed through the mechanism of religion. Modern capitalists often reject the role of morality in business world decision-making.
2
I think Robert Mueller and his team are moral heroes. The Mueller investigative team seems to be maintaining the highest level of professionalism.
14
Claiming someone is a *hero* because he supports one's ideology is hardly heroism. If anything, ideologues exhibit depravity, not heroism.
We make the matter so, so complicated! If one starts with the guidance the Bible provides for Jews and Christians ... which is probably basically the same as what is provided for other faith traditions: Humankind is created in the image and likeness of God for what is Real ... meaning, as I take it, in freedom, to love (in the generous and courageous sense, while honoring oneself). Accordingly, the choice of what particularly to do, doesn’t make a difference; it’s the doing in-love that does. And imitating someone else for particularly what they do/ did, regardless of how true and admirable, would be something like a fool’s errand. The only question is, How does one get over oneself enough, freely to love in a way that encompasses healthy mutuality? When one considers “gift” in this regard, formulation becomes contradictory. And so we are stuck, downstream and in many cases frustrated, with Mystery. The real question may be, If Grace is so wonderful, why is it so hard to accept?
1
I know plenty of moral heroes who happen to be atheists.
1
Mr. Brooks omits at least one trait of moral heroes: a sense of reality. They are not "insanely optimistic." They assess when individual action will prove futile and collective action is necessary.
For example, the federal government passed anti-lynching laws during the Reconstruction era, yet it took a concerted effort of many, not Ida B. Hays alone, finally to persuade government officials to enforce such laws in the twentieth century. Earlier, the fate of individuals who challenged the KKK without the support of many peers and key power holders was sealed.
Today's young people who look to a history of irrational conflict over the Second Amendment and question its current relevance seem to understand that they cannot achieve gun control without the support and cooperation of millions of us. And gun violence is only one of the pressing issues that must unite us for the hope of progress to survive. We cannot rely on the extraordinary courage of a few leaders to do it for us. They need all of us. Progress takes collective action.
4
This piece is perhaps a Shakespearean aside, alluding to what is essentially missing in our leader; the elements that are particularly missing in the man. Brooke points to a path which great people have taken in diminishing themselves as they do for others; a path Trump has never taken, and will not, for he is unable to think of anyone but himself.
1
The other day I was trying to convince my wife that social conditions in the late 19th century and early 20th were ripe for the formation of secret plots to bring about the Second Coming, as it might have been understood at the time. Specifically, wealth was concentrated in the hands of the kinds of people who would be susceptible to the visions of the various Rasputin-like characters floating around then. She rolled her eyes.
So along comes Mr. Brooks to unite two really slippery words, "moral" and "hero." I did a check on the phrase with Google Ngram Viewer, which charts the occurrence of words and phrases in books of the last two centuries. The phrase is extremely rare, yet there is a distinct peak in its usage. Guess when? The period 1880-1900. Thanks, Dave.
2
Aristotle made the answer to this question clear 2,500 years ago: moral heroes are made of character and (practical) intellectual virtue.
7
Sometimes a piece can be both good and simplistic. This one is.
A moral hero need not fatigue but neither should he allow himself to stop thinking. The idealism of Communism and Party produced many moral heroes who remained so until it was too late.
2
David, the moral certainty of these people reminds me of. . . you, a few years ago, before 45. Obviously, your faith in the Fox/FreedomCaucus approach to the world has been badly shaken. But, you are still trying to pick up the old pieces. Put it all back together. But I think it's broken, gone, that old Reaganism with sunlight in America. Your old compadres are breaking everything to purpose nothing but riches beyond compare, the opposite of what/who you are writing about. Come on over. . . we will forgive you for the past.
1
I'm personally sick and tired of hearing about heroes. Since the mid-70's when Rocky came out, Americans have turned heroism or underdogism into an industry: police officer saves little girl, hero; soldier comes back from a war, hero; fireman puts out a fire, hero; football team wins the superbowl, heroes, CEO makes gazillions of dollars, hero!
Americans, in this regard, are the neediest most pathetic group of people in the world.
Life isn't about hero worship or being a hero yourself. For most of us, life is about doing the best we can with the resources we have and, if we're lucky, we make a positive impact in the world. Unfortunately, for a lot of people, life is a battle and winning (or looking like you're winning) is the most important thing, which is why Brooks sounds like so many shallow talking heads on TV or sports commentators or, worse yet, the imbecile in the White House.
I think it's more important that we pay attention to the people around us, the regular folk who work constantly to gain mastery in the things their good at and to tell them how much we appreciate them. It's not heroism. It's life.
21
A real hero doesn't begin to think of him/herself as a hero. They are only seen that way by others. So that says something not about the hero, but those who perceive him so. "If you have a hero, look again. You've given yourself away."
2
Two qualifiers sum up David Brooks' incomprehension on this topic: a person not preoccupied with worldly success is "weird" and the level of optimism that allows them to do so is "insane."
A person seeking to do some good in this world would be ill-advised to read this article for guidance, bold-face catchphrases notwithstanding.
5
Brooks blathers while America burns! Shine the light on moral heroes in the political world, please! Those are the ones about whom we most need to know these days!
5
Thanks David for a terrific column.
2
When reading this article, I was struck by how’ve many of the qualities discussed would also apply to great villains. Hitler for example certainly had a bias for action over thinking, was not concerned about personal hedonistic pleasures, was single-minded about what he saw Germany’s problems were, and was insanely optimistic at Germany’s ability to fight a war.
It seems that this list just describes the things that lead people to have an impact, not the things that determine whether the impact is good or bad. It would be more interesting to consider what virtues—perhaps empathy, rationality, utilitarianism, etc.—distinguish those who have a good impact from those who have a bad one. I imagine such a list would put less emphasis on action and more on thinking.
5
This makes me think of all the heroic opportunities that Mr Brooks has squandered. Maybe it's not to late for him to take to heart his own page.
8
Gosh, aren't you the self appointed Judger in Chief?
Are you so perfect, that you warrant trying to knock down someone who tries to encourage ordinary citizens to be in touch with the better angels of their souls?
Enough of the mean spirited cynicism.
If you're Davkid Brooks, a Reagan conservative, and employed to write during this "time of Trump,"I suppose at some point, if you are a consistent reader of David's column, you come to an understanding that is truly best inferred and the subtext of this latest piece. David Brooks is a commentator--- someone whose attempt to view human interaction, society, and culture from outside of any personal commitment or engagement to the human phenomenon that he abstractly evaluates, considers, and writes about in his twice weekly column. He is, in fact, dispassionately abstracted, in part, because he appears to believe that to do his job well, he needs to be free of the messiness of passionate commitment to an idee fixe. I wonder if, in this latest column, he is wishing he had the capacity and passion to be a moral hero.
2
I can't help but notice that Mr. Brooks approves when individuals do things like this. So why does her prefer the political party in our country that doesn't?
9
I don't know many moral hero's. But I do know that David Brooks, Mr. Third Base Start, is hardly an arbiter on morality. Or Character. Because if he were, he;d segregate his idea by gender, based on the same data and research he depends for all his other faux high minded material. So admirable is a life of service, Mr. Brooks suggests, it can be done without hesitancy, question or ego. How convenient, said the powerful white man of with institutional misogyny and the powerful NYT pen on his side. Just how many women give a life of service compared to men? How many hours of unpaid labor by women? IN the service of children and future mankind? How many highly educated men with whom Mr. Brooks align himself, live in the service of other human beings? I don't know one. Not one man who gives more than a few hours a year of his free labor. Yet, every single woman I know doesn't just volunteer and work for free in the service of others and community, but is expected to do so, unlike any of the men I know. Mr. Brooks, perhaps, you should be directing your many character, ethics minded, selfless campaigns for morality and an altruistic life to your fellow white men. As a woman already living full time in the service of others, and also serving as head my household, with a full time job, and men in charge of my geographical, health and reproductive freedom, I have nothing left to give your moral cause. A moral society wouldn't treat women so terribly.
10
Nice job of ignoring the elephant in the room. A more relevant column would have discussed the reasons for the utter lack of moral heroes in this Republican congress.
Sad.
13
To leave the world a better place for your have been here, THAT is a life well lived.
3
This is all very nice David, but you need to get to work on writing something relevant to our seriously difficult situation in the USA.
You, as an intelligent conservative, need to step up and start writing about what is happening to our rule of law. It, and our entire country, is threatened by Trump and Republicans.
You need to speak up, man, and be one of these moral heroes.
4
Very often that ideal has been planted by the teachings of Christianity. Few exemplified better the traits identified by Mr. Brooks than Jesus Christ.
1
I think this is David's way of telling us he's getting ready to take up the mantle of Andrei Sakharov, who after all was the designer of the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons program before he became a hero that stood up for peace and freedom against the repressive Soviet system. Much like David helped stoke the myth of American Greatness, as a successor to British Greatness, Roman Greatness, etc., which has always served as a fig leaf for White Supremacy, Bigotry and Imperial Repression. All the while paving the way to the corrupt disaster that is Trump, whom David now purports to tell us how to save ourselves from. What hypocrisy!
You know who you are NOT describing, Mr. Brooks?
Today's Republican Party.
Or Even Today's Whig Party.
3
Did we really need a column on this? One does not have to embrace of life of poverty and eschew all material things to be a "moral hero."
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln come to mind. As do Clara Barton, Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks and Winfield Scott Hancock. (Hancock was in command of the Union center at Gettysburg, just before Lee's army assaulted it in what is now known as Pickett's Charge. During the Confederate cannonade, Hancock deliberately exposed himself to enemy fire, calmly riding his horse up and down his lines, to encourage his men. When his staff pleaded with him to take shelter, he replied, "Sometimes a general's life isn't worth a damn.")
Where are the Republicans in Congress today, taking a personal risk to preserve the Republic? They do not need to fear being hung for sedition, like Washington or Jefferson. Or shot at, like Hancock or Lincoln. Or held up to vicious personal attacks like Parks or Anthony.
Mr. Brooks: please use your time wisely. How about some moral courage on your part? Give us a column on the traitors within our midst, individuals and corporations, who work daily to subvert our Constitution and rule of law. Use the First Amendment, while we still have it.
358
That's the problem. You and all the naysayers about the lack moral leadership and prophetic imagination would rather spend time wrestling with the pigs. If we spent as much time on developing the leadership type that Brooks writes about as we do on trying to fix the miscreants you so despise we'd be progressing and not regressing. A great example of this is all the time and money, time, and anxiety the Catholic church puts into the "bad priests." Society it seems will never think this through as long as we're stuck in the punitive mode.
12
Thomas Jefferson as a moral hero---you gotta be kidding. Certainly he was brilliant and contributed greatly to the establishment of the US and we should appreciate and honor those contributions. But as a human being his treatment of his slave was despicable (no, it's not true that was just okay with everyone back then).
Wagner was not a moral hero--but he did write great music.
Picasso was not a moral hero, but he created great art.
James Levine is not a moral hero, but he created great musical performances.
9
Really? Everything must be political?
2
David as I read your article I couldn't help but compare these people with the rays of the sun. The sun does not discriminate on gender, color, are social status it gives us all the healing rays to grow and nourish. I couldn't help but think of the Trumpet administration, being like that of a black hole that sucks everything into its center, even light and time. This administration is set on dismantling anything good that the Obama administration put into place for the welfare of mankind, and the love and kindness of our neighbors across the waters. We see the pettiness and insecurities play out day after day after day; making each 24 hour cycle seemingly like time has been stretched out, to make 'our lives' getting what it's like to do time in our prison system. Maybe that's what God had in mind, was to show 'us' what true nature of what bad time lived out, is really like.
We should all be "moral heroes ". Jesus Christ, the wisest man ever to live, admonished us in the gospel of Matthew " Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.. but store up treasures in heaven..........For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
4
Interestingly, sentiments never reflected in Mr. Brooks's politics.
6
Sadly I cannot name one politician, maybe John McCain, who would fit into this profile.
3
Oh how many "little people" that we have among us who are moral heroes! Thanks for recalling them to us, for making us want to be more like them.
1
I don't disagree with anything you say, Mr. Brooks. I also didn't disagree with Eric Schneiderman's moral defense of the MeToo movement, or the Catholic Church preaching love of innocent children while ignoring scores of its priests grossly perverting that message.
Where is your party on gun violence? Care for the poor and sick? Where are the moral heroes? Craven amoral villains is more accurate.
But you keep writing about morals and values. Do as I say, not as I vote.
www.newyorkgritty.net
5
Are moral heroes different from moral saints? I would hope so. Moral saints would give away all their money to fighting poverty or helping animals or supporting hungry children in Africa. They would step in front of a train if it could avoid killing five other people.
For obvious reasons, the life of a moral saint would be an impossible one. It would not be a human life, because it would not be in the realm of human nature, which consists in part of caring for one's self.
How close are moral heroes to moral saints? Is there a dividing line or are the borders blurry? In a more religious age, moral saints might hope to receive salvation in an after-life.
1
A Polish friend's aunt was just canonized by the Catholic Church for dedicating her life to health care for the poor. She initiated home health care services and started one of the first community hospitals. The saint's brave niece used to smuggle food into the Warsaw ghetto. Today, her great niece is still tending to the homebound in her capacity with Visiting Nurses. The line between saint and hero may just lie in the level of dedication and commitment. They are all heroes to me.
Life is complicated. This may well be nothing but a few superficial guesses as to the commonality of "moral heroes." I think the work of a biographer like a David McCullough about just one "moral hero," sifting through dozens of interviews in remote locales, separating the wheat from the chafe, would be a much more informative way to address these issues. This is a short piece, that, may be, though quite short, a waste of one's precious time.
1
David, please write your next column on the subject of what we should be doing while living in a time that is conspicuously marked by the virtual absence of moral heroes and is peopled instead with political leaders of the caliber of Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Devin Nunes, the Freedom Caucus, Mike Pence and Donald John Trump.
Please be bold and leave nothing out, including the pros and cons of armed revolution.
8
We mortals need not aspire to be heroes. Just doing the right thing when you could have just as easily done the wrong thing, doing the right thing because doing otherwise never entered your mind, is more than enough.
105
Or you could aspire to be a moral hero. You only get one life, why not?
3
Given Mr. Brooks incapacity to see the moral high-ground of Barak Obama and his policy agenda, and his failure to call out GOP members of Congress for their obstructionism and blatant racism, as well as his constant spin to defend conservative tenets that are manifest in the heartless and nefarious Republican legislative agenda, this column shows up completely empty.
Immoral leaders exhibit the same characteristics, like "sharing core tasks". Witness the collaboration among the GOP, billionaire-funded PACS, FOX News and the NRA.
And talk about goal expansion, the NRA is another fine example with programs to market the lore of guns to children and to arm teachers, while the GOP expansion of tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations has "expanded" their agenda to call for and to do away with the social safety net.
In sum, a entirely disingenuous column if ever there was one.
2
Mr. Brooks.
I appreciate the honest stab at what makes good people tick, but the term "moral hero" is missing the point that you yourself are making. In my limited anecdotal experience the moment the word "hero" is bandied about, the moral dimension shrivels. "Hero" is a word used by those who misunderstand it or those who desire to be the hero. The ambition to be a hero has motivated much of the world's evil. Better to avoid heroism and simply laugh like a child. They might not get iPhones and Teslas, but they didn't care about the trappings of a hero in the first place. Heroes don't want to be heroes. Don't make them heroes. It can ruin them. Leave them alone.
2
David’s stress on moral heroes, exemplary individuals, is part of his lament over the complete moral failure of the GOP Congress the Trump White House and the Roberts Court. Unfortunately, these outstanding moral individuals are not in a position to correct the institutional collapse of the Country.
1
More pious mooing from Mr. Brooks.
What is particularly striking about this piece is that the characteristics he has stapled to his definition of a "moral hero" are utterly lacking in the party to which he belongs and the political beliefs - contemporary American conservatism - which he continues to support.
But no matter! Stumble onward, Mr. Brooks! Don't hesitate to avert your eyes from the toxic sump your party and philosophy have become - after all, who really wants to confront the mess they themselves helped create? Better by far to call forth the fading memories of the better angels of our nature and to pause, dazzled by the glitter of your rapier intelligence (a glitter that only you can see).
3
"pious mooing"--a phrase I want to hold on to! And I agree that Mr. Brooks needs to take a close look at the nation his party has created/destroyed/corrupted.
But after all these years of reading his columns, I can't help but feel sorry for David--he is always looking for the moral, the right, the most honorable thing to do. And he used to be able to find it in the conservative outlook.
No longer--conservatives have become the embodiment of violations of most of the Ten Commandments and all of the Seven Deadly Sins. Look at the president's defining characteristics: lying, gluttony, greed, covetousness of neighbors' goods, wives, etc., and an inability to love God or any other person. And he's the candidate of "Christians"! Sorry--can't write "Christians" without the scare quotes any more--they are about as "religious" as Pontius Pilate.
Imagine the struggle poor David faces every time he sits down to pen a column--how to poke his nose above the sewer he finds himself dwelling in as a modern Republican. I actually think David and Barack Obama could have been close friends if given the chance. Both seem to consider morality in day-to-day decisions and actions more than the average person. That can't be easy for a conservative in the age of trump. So let's be a little nicer to our Mr. Brooks in his pain. But don't let go of "pious mooing!"
Fighting poverty by fighting a living wage, fighting huner by cuttin SNAP to incentivize the poor, fighting illness by increasing healthcare costs, insurance and simply advocating the destruction and end of Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA, confronting sectarian violence by arming one side to the teeth, supporting family values by eradicating family planning and supporting a self described sexual predator/deviant, taking funds from social welfare, education, infrastructure to cut taxes, and lying, misleading, and deceiving are the character of Republicans, the virtues of Conservatives, the hallmarks of the Freedom Caucus.
What preserves them from an angry mob of their victims? False equivalence, propaganda, years of subversion? The only means by which Republicans gain power is to so alienate the fearful that they yield to the formulaic denunciation of representative government in favor of oligarchs and autocrats.
It’s unique to read Brooks column that fails to conclude how courageous his favorite Paul Ryan is among moral heroes. There is no moral person or leader among the leadership of the Republican Party? Is Brooks a moral hero? Is clinging to the moral villainy of Republican leadership willfully denying evidence of the outcomes and consequences a type of heroism? Or is it pathological?
1
Wouldn't it be great if moral heroes actually earned a living wage? Yes, absolutely , let's thank them for their service and do everything we can to support them in their work, but when the folks who lovingly care for our children or our elderly, who put out the fires and counsel the unwell cannot afford to meet their healthcare bills or send their kids to college, that's martyrdom or enslavement. You pick.
4
Mr. Brooks,
I enjoyed this essay, but I think you're making it unduly complicated with all the various highlighted adjectives and metaphors. It's really quite simple. Those who have "found" the path to spiritual enlightment and moral clarity--the "heroes" you showcase--all share one fundamental trait: An innate ego-less-ness; the ability to transcend ego for a higher purpose, starting with living a moral lifestyle, but going well beyond that in their daily lives and pursuits.
Plenty of philosophers have made just this point; two I would point to are Ken Wilber and Eckhart Tolle. Wilber says in his book "One Taste" (repeated and maybe more accessible in "The Essential Ken Wilber, pp. 31-35) that one of the biggest problems we have in Western thought is that we all want our saints to be perfect, devoid of all the baser human instincts, drives, and relationships. Money, food, sex, desire--they want their saints to be without. Repress it, deny it, escape it. A lot of organized religion swirls around just this central issue.
"Egoless" does not mean "less than personal"; it means "*more* than personal." Think of Christ, Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer. They were not feeble-mannered milquetoasts, but fierce movers and shakers. These great movers and shakers were not small egos; they were, in the very best sense, big egos, precisely because the ego can and does exist alongside the Soul and the Self. But it doesn't rule their lives; it balances it.
58
Trouble is, all this also goes for people devoted to bad causes.
66
PL in Sweden, You might want to amplify your remark. On face value, are you comparing Gandhi to Stalin? When we can't tell the difference, it is time to turn out the lights.
I don't believe that's true. Those devoted to bad causes, like Hitler and some of the worst despots around the world, all have seemed to be devoted to their own personal comfort and collection of wealth.
1
It is so telling that David Brooks, rather than acknowledge the profiles in courage of the Obama presidency, which rescued our nation from the Great Recession and brought healthcare to millions of indigent children in the face of fierce opposition, he fecklessly turns abroad.
Though eloquent and a gentleman, Brooks lacks moral courage if it means reaching across the aisle.
6
I would hardly call former President Obama a moral hero. Canonizing mortal men doesn't make them saints.
This is just too preachy for a republican who couldn't recognize the moral hero we had in President Obama.
The republican party owns Trump. Moralize that.
12
Mr. Brooks, how reprehensible for you on a national broadcast Sunday to dismiss gun violence by declaring that schools are "the safest place for children"... as compared to what? Battlefields?
In this time when NRA wingy dingys have distorted and distracted on any kind of meaningful debate, I found your flippancy to be part of the problem. Shameful.
8
I've been acquainted with dozens of these type of folks and I have to say, I don't recognize them in your description. That's not to say these type of saints don't exist. I just think they're far more the exception than the rule.
Many of the dedicated do-gooders I have known are extremely narcissistic, often putting abstract ideals ahead of real people -- like their kids or their employees. Their personal happiness is very much an issue, as I would guess the percentage of them on antidepressants is far higher than the general population. And rather than open-minded, many are extremely closed minded, fanatics for their cause.
I'm not saying those who devote their lives to good work are worse than your average person. It's just that they're human like the rest of us.
While I guess the purpose of this column is to inspire, I think it could have the opposite effect, turning people off because they're not saintly enough to pursue good causes.
2
Paul Ryan is one such man. Instead of serving himself, he devoted himself to public service. While his peers were ascending corporate ladders or building businesses, he was selflessly helping to unshackle the common man from a nanny state that threatened to deprive him of his liberty. Wayne LaPierre is another of these moral heroes. He doesn't overthink it, and has dedicated himself year after year, while under extreme pressure from others, to a path that he has seen from his youth: freedom.
Great moral heroes that Mr Brooks has supported with his writings for years. In fact, perhaps, Mr Brooks belongs in this Pantheon, too.
48
One of the best pieces of sarcasm I’ve seen in a long time. Stellar.
54
With all due respect, Eben, I emphatically disagree with your assessment of Paul Ryan and Wayne LaPierre. To be a moral hero is not to be specifically political or to espouse a particular point of view while denigrating those who disagree with you. Moral heroes, at least as I understand David's column, simply do things to better the human condition without expectation of reward or recognition. One of the definitions of democracy is "the principles of social equality and respect for the individual in a community" (Webster's II New College Dictionary, 3rd ed.). The beauty of a democracy is that we look out for one another and work together to achieve a common goal.
Paul Ryan is working to end programs that are crucial to the health and well-being of millions of Americans. Wayne LaPierre, simply put, has the blood of thousands upon thousands of people on his hands. No sir, these two are not moral heroes.
I appreciated David's column and hope that those who consider themselves to be morally superior will heed its simple message: treat others as you would have them treat you.
20
Best piece of satire I've read in ages. Thanks for the laugh!
40
Did you find a lot of Republican politicians in your group of moral heros? Here's a hint - don't go looking for moral heroes among the Republicans in Congress. There's not a moral spine in the whole sorry lot of them. All the fuzzy feel-good moral uplifting things you're writing about overlap little if any with the Trumpian values being sprayed about by the 'morally upright' "conservatives" and "Christians" who wrap themselves in morality. Is there an inverse correlation between the pursuit of wealth and the moral integrity of a person? Sure seems that way.
8
"Is there an inverse correlation between the pursuit of wealth and the moral integrity of a person?"
Yep. Jesus: It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven. Lots of current research confirms he got it right. https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_piff_does_money_make_you_mean
Genuine service is manifested at the intersections of the "I" and the "We".
1
I study Heroism during the Holocaust and have examined the personalities of these moral exemplars relative to bystanders. The rescuers were a demographically heterogeneous group with strong dispositional similarity characterized by care-based moral courage, social responsibility, and empathic concern. These traits likely emerged from an integrated moral identity established during childhood. Rescuing Jews for many was but a natural extension of their prewar moral identities that sustained heroic altruism often not only throughout the war, but after the war into later life. By contrast, the bystanders were significantly lower in social responsibility and risk-taking than both the rescuers and a comparison group, suggesting the bystanders we see now in Congress are more self-oriented and are less inclined to take risks on behalf of the vulnerable other because it is the right thing to do. They are more likely to conform with the ingroup and to avoid personal distress at another’s’ suffering- especially a member of an outgroup. Bystanders , however, will conform to messages for good if there is a strong enough leader. Right now the loudest voice among the bystanders has crossed the line into perpetrator status- Devin Nunes. McCain’s voice is fading. A Republican Leader in Congress who has the moral courage to be an upstander who has skin in the game is desperately needed right now. Unfortunately it does not seem a likely outcome. Mueller and Rosenstein are our upstanders.
78
Nice comment. However, the indifference of which you accuse members of Congress applies to us as well. Brooks greatly admires Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow. A well-known study in social psychology discovered that when people think someone else will step up to handle a situation that involves taking some responsibility, effort, or even risk, the majority will be passive and become a bystander. In a second experiment, after students became familiar with the first study, he asked them how they think they would respond to such a situation, and almost all of them said they would step up. Kahneman concluded that it was impossible to teach psychology. We all like to think of ourselves as heroes when in fact we are by standers. This column and many of the comments are merely exercises in self-deception.
4
Reducing the message of this column by David Brooks to politics is short-sighted, to say the least. While moral heroes may try politics for awhile, they most likely won't survive. Politics is a dirty business by its nature. Even Abe Lincoln had to compromise with the devil.
1
Not sure we can ascribe moral heroism to Rosenstein yet -- the book is still out on that.
In fact, unless Mueller makes sure his findings are made public, we won't be able to fully endow him with that label either.
1
"We can fabricate fame, we can at will (though usually at considerable expense) make a man or a woman well known; but we can cannot make him or her great. In a now almost forgotten sense, all heroes are self made…
“The hero was distinguished by his achievement; the celebrity by his image or trademark. The hero created himself; the celebrity is created by the media. The hero was a big man; the celebrity is a big name…
“In this life of illusion and quasi-illusion, the person with solid virtues who can be admired for something more substantial than his well-knownness, often proves to be the unsung hero; the teacher, the nurse, the mother, the honest cop, the hard worker at lonely, underpaid, unglamorous jobs…
“Their virtues are not the product of our effort to fill our void."
—Daniel J. Boorstin, "The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America", 1962.
2
So, what happens when a hedgehog meets a fox? The hedgehog just curls up and hides? The fox tries to eat the hedgehog and put it out of existence? What happens when a group of healthcare providers offer a variety of gynecological, prenatal, and family planning advice to poor women and meet with misogynist zealots? Hedgehog maybe a good analogy for those who worked on the Underground Railroad. I do not think it applies to Planned Parenthood today. They are in the fight for their life and the lives of those whom they serve. The foxes are Republican Legislatures who claim to know more about women's health needs than themselves and their doctors. The foxes will also ignore the poor and their healthcare needs; e.g. nutrition, witness the Farm Bill. Moreover, the foxes create their own paradox, they want the poor to work for their benefits, and yet 40% of the poor are children. The foxes also proposed a healthcare bill that took benefits away from the poor. As regards Washington D.C., the moral leaders are vacating Congress. 45 is doing to our democracy what President Erdogan has done to the Republic of Turkey, gutted the Department of Justice and trashed the rule of law. Beware of the foxes!
2
'Inferior pleasures' -- I love that. Perhaps it is the rest of us who are weirdly oblivious?
2
I'm sure that our current President and the Republican Congress would look at that same list and come away thinking "That's what suckers are made of.". Just look what they have done to war heroes, gold star families, veterans, ecologists, scientists, teachers, refugees, the working poor and the Tempest Tossed. Moral heroes cannot be identified until they are tested. That test has been under way for two years now and the failure rate among the Republican party stands at 80%. Trump's approval rate within the Party.
5
There's an 50th anniversary upcoming--June 6, 1968--related to an individual who could have been the photo at the top of your column. As I went down the bolded items in your column, I mentally checked every item for this individual. I'm talking about someone who needs only three initials to provide universal understanding (like MLK)--RFK. He was killed 50 years ago. Tell me that you need any more than a reading of the Day of Affirmation speech to understand the moral courage that resided in the man. If that's not enough for you, read his Indianapolis speech, given shortly after MLK's death. Then recognize that his words were backed by many actions...
To a group of students, in South Africa, in the middle of apartheid, RFK said: "Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the most essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world which yields most painfully to change." ["Day of Affirmation," June 6, 1966, University of Cape Town] To use your phrase: "this is what I do"--that's what he did, for poverty, civil rights, resistance to an insanely bad war...
Just how bereft this country is of moral courage is reflected in any comparison of present day leaders with those taken so early in life, in 1968--MLK and RFK. Both, having lived, would have continued their evolution and possibly prevented many of the moral lapses this country has suffered. Current leadership is not qualified to shine their shoes...
4
The great moral heroes of the human race?
I dislike them like I dislike the great moral monsters, the most evil people, of the human race. They are two sides of the same unthinking, simple coin. What do we notice the more a person is a great moral hero? Usually it involves the person increasing the numbers of the human race, that the person is a hero for helping this or that large or small group of people increase itself and ideally for having helped the entire human race increase its mere numbers and succeed.
Who are the great moral monsters of the human race, the diametric opposites of the heroes? Those who have the greatest body counts, those who wiped out this or that group or ideally indiscriminately wiped out large numbers of people. In both cases good and evil is associated with simple increase or decrease of members of the human race.
There is little thought involved apparently, merely a primitive psychology closely associated to the reproductive urge, either to be a good father and reproduce heavily and raise as many children as possible or to perhaps reproduce but then have second thoughts and to massively control or destroy offspring.
Today of course we see the human population having increased greatly and prospered (the good) but we have also deep and increasing hostility and increasing measures of control and regulation and herding of population.
I would like to see decrease of both great moral heroes and monsters and increase of individual genius.
1
This is good, but I don't like the bit about "heroes." People have different callings. Some want to be teachers, nurses, entrepreneurs, writers, firemen, soldiers, policemen, social workers, or ministers. It's not about being a hero, it's about doing what comes naturally.
The problem comes when we idolize one type. Then we end up saying that everyone ought to be a businessman, soldier, poverty fighter or what-have-you. Equally bad is to villainize the other. For instance, some people insist that all soldiers, lawyers, policemen, social workers or doctors are bad. That's nonsense.
For whatever reason, we all have different longings. We go astray when we try to force people to become something they are not or when we refuse to accept people who follow paths different than our own.
2
There are real moral heroes in the world. None of them are Republicans, none of them Trump supporters.
5
Nothing exemplifies missing Mr. Brooks' point more than making this political.
1
I seriously doubt that donald trump would see these people as "heroes" as "hedgehogs" or "their self-identity (is) fused with a moral ideal." He would simply brand them as "losers".
I both commend and envy these heroes for their selfless commitment to a moral cause and their persistence to succeed. Just as the truth will always ultimately prevail so will good charitable acts of the truly righteous. They will make America great again.
Ah, the thousand points of light. Sadly, given the serious problems troubling America, the thousand points of light are no more than the briefest of candles in gale force winds. Gemli could not have said it better: “Not everyone can be a selfless, capable moral hero. An individual may not have the time, the talent or the resources to devote their lives to being a role model and moral entrepreneur for others.
So we look for people to represent our wants and needs, and we elect them. We succeeded with Barack Obama. He had the grace, intelligence, empathy and demeanor to lead the nation.”
Only the coordinated efforts and resources of the whole nation can make right the crises that so many Americans face every day. Unfortunately, we are forced to contend with a political party and a president that divide the country and espouse the selfish philosophy of everyone for him or herself. In this fractious environment those all too brief candles in the darkness are met with the gale force winds of “not on my dime.”
2
You don't have to have a huge following to be a moral hero. Public school teachers. Enough said.
185
I thought the same about teachers. One quibble about pursuing happiness — I think behaving this way causes happiness. These people are just not pursuing happiness for its own sake.
2
Aw shucks! Thanks!
2
We applaud people who care for the least among us as moral exemplars, but we are suspicious of those who question a political-economy that allows even requires so much poverty and pain.
I say: We need more revolutionaries who will resist the current corruption of our system. We need more ordinary people to live the Golden Rule and demand equal rights and responsibilities for all of our fellow human beings.
2
People who I know who dedicate a substantial portion of their free time towards care for the poor, the homeless and the addicted in our society seem to have several common traits: a sense of selflessness, good organizational abilities, good health, and senses of humor. They provide meals to the poor after working their day jobs, and regularly dedicate Saturdays to volunteering for this or that event while finding time to get out on the town on Saturday nights.
They also have another trait I admire - they don't talk about what they do for the poor, the homeless, the addicted.
It's amazing what some folks are doing, right in our midst, if we care to look....
8
The cat is out of the bag. With this column, David Brooks makes it plain that he has retired to his comfy chair to write book reports about inspiring people. He has no aspirations to inspire others, or to take on risk or personal action to improve the world. He has adopted the old school conservatism of using High Moral Tone to tell other people (lately, progressives) how to live their lives. He is on a huge platform with nothing to say; in that respect, Mr. Brooks is one and the same with President Trump.
11
It is a point of view and yet the concept of David Brooks left void of giving his readership a lecture on how to behave with valor in these uncertain times falls shallow.
Acts of moral and physical courage have been said to often walk hand-in-hand, and when James Parsons returns to his small town, lauded by his family and the community as a hero for having saved a man in combat during WWI, he has an exchange with his mother:
"He was wrong to make little of your attempt to save young Larcher," said Mrs. Parsons gently.
"Why" asked James. "He was partly right. Physical courage is more or less accidental. In battle one take's one chance".
"But you went back-into the very jaws of death-to save that boy", his mother continues.
"I've never been able to understand why. It didn't occur to me that I might get killed; it seemed the natural thing to do. It wasn't really brave, because I never realized there was danger".
So writes Somerset Maugham in his 'Hero', one who is killed by the kindness of well-meaning people, while David Brooks writes an inspirational essay in time to honor Memorial Day.
Trump takes gambles at our expense and toys with the safety of our Nation in so doing.
And be it noted that when he was politically engaged he was a tireless cheerleader for the GOP. That's socially inconvenient for Mr. Brooks now that his party belongs entirely to an authoritarian nitwit, so he's buried his Republican fanboy persona in order to assume the guise of a moral sage.
1
But of course, it'd be an insult to call these folks a hero, Mr Brooks.
Recently, I have been watching a lot of Japanese Anime. They are as formulaic as the Hallmark movies; however, they have one common theme we Americans should learn. In them, the leaders may not be the superhero and the exceptional beings with supernatural abilities ultimately band together as a whole for the common good.
For a while, this common good mythos were also taught in the likes of Sesame Street. But by and large, the American myth is about the lone hero riding into the sunset.
Even when America is ready to move on, the social reactionaries want to regress to the old days of lawless Dodge City. Against all evidence. But in fact, we live in contradictions. Kids look up to football and basketball stars. And they are exceptional athletes. Yet the best sports teams who manage to win days in and days out are those who emphasize team work. Yet, we ignore that.
Maybe things have changed. Back in the old days, the difference between Harvard B-school and MIT Sloan is the the former made you compete with your classmates. It's neither you or them. MIT emphasized team work. Recently, there is a survey stating Harvard B-school grads make most money. So what does it tell you?
Sadly, even if some NYT readers refuse to acknowledge, some in this country support Trump even if there were no Russian interference. And there are always "heroes" after a school shootings. Who needs heroes when we live in peace?
3
To David Brooks:
Your column this morning stimulated this affirmative response. I am an 85-year-old widow, still putting in many hours each week working in behalf of an upper Manhattan anti-poverty (to use the language of the ‘60s) program. While most of my contemporaries are worrying about memory loss, I have the benefit of keeping my mind agile writing successful grant applications and matching wits with government funding agencies. While many of my contemporaries are living in senior communities, isolated from young people, I have the benefit of daily interaction with gifted educators and therapists and the parents and children in the outstanding Head Start program I serve. I look forward to every day.
What made this productive life possible was the support of my late husband, a life-long corporate executive and Republican, and a wonderful parent to our three daughters, whose human values sent us all out into the world to try to make it a better place.
5
Amen, Sandra. And excellent advice for this 61-year-old reader.
Dear David,
Welcome to the contemplative life. You can find much more on the subject at cac.org where Richard Rohr publishes a daily meditation, and writes widely on the wisdom tradition. The key is that you don't get up one morning and decide to live this way. It's a process of waking up to a different vision of the universe we all inhabit. Once you see it, you can never unsee it, and the life ensues. The vision eschews traditional boundaries and finds common root at the edges of all the great world religions. Drill down into your own religious tradition and you are sure to find the contemplative stream. Just find it any way you can!
3
Nice comment, Jack. As a contemplative here in L.A. under the direction of James Finley, also affiliated with the Center for Action and Contemplation, I couldn't agree more. My experience is that when I move more inward, I can step out into the world with more compassion and understanding. I have the energy and stability to be more present with what is. Thanks again.
This is a fine little piece. I found it delightful.
But, as previous comments have mentioned- we headed for a crisis down here. Mr Brooks, you have a platform to help us out.
Perhaps enlighten us as to how our GOP senators, all about "Morality" sit by smiling at DJT as he works to blindly destroy our country.
How and why is that happening? Help us understand that one please.
21
I have been reading Chernow's biography of Ulysses S. Grant. Your essay describes him perfectly. Before I read this essay, I had already added Grant to my list of moral heroes. When he volunteered to resume his military career at the beginning of the Civil War, he had an insane belief that he would succeed and that the country needed him. He was optimistic, but he simply thought that he was doing his duty to save the republic. When he had setbacks, as in the first day of the Battle of Shiloh, he simply said, "The rebels are first day wonders, but we'll lick 'em tomorrow." And he did. At Vicksburg he beat two Southern armies, one in the field while he was trapping another in the city. When he went against Robert E. Lee, who had had scary success against other Union generals, he said, "I know his weaknesses. We'll keep after him until he cries 'enough.'" In victory, he was generous to the defeated enemy and welcomed them back into the nation. (Note: items in quotations are not exact quotes, but close to the essence of Grant's remarks.) He invented total warfare in the sense that he felt the rebels should reap tenfold what they had sown (also an effective strategy), and thus became the first modern general. He also had faith in the freed-slave population, was one of the first to accept them into the army, train them, and use them as troops. During the victory parade in Washington, he made sure the black units were in the parade.
8
Back in 2013, I read an enlightening book by Etsko Schuitema called “Intent” that said many of the same things that are outlined in this article. In Schuitema’s book, he outlined his thinking that the foundation of moral courage is gratitude.
Namely, if I know that everything I have is more than my due, then my task is to share what I have when the need is presented in front of me. I am sustained by the same forces that have always sustained me; what’s left is only doing the right thing in each moment.
This thinking is not results-focused, but intention and process-focused. When we think this way, when we concern ourselves less with happiness (what we get, which is always fleeting), and more with meaning (what we give, which is under our control), then we find satisfaction.
In my own experience working with the elderly, I find the ones who are grateful for even the smallest things are finding more satisfaction with life, and are the ones everyone wants to interact with. Of course they feel more connected.
While this was expressed differently in Mr. Brooks’s column today, the similarities between his thoughts and Mr. Schuitema’s ‘Intent Thematic’ are striking.
3
If we think only people who turn their lives upside down can do this, we miss the point. All the great moral leaders led lives that inspire us to do this in small (but great) ways. If we think we have to be saints to love peace, speak the truth, heal the sick, bind up the brokenhearted, become one with the poor, then many will not step forward or see a place for themselves. But I know that many small acts of moral courage and kindness are done every day and if we begin to see this as the way humans are to love one another, perhaps there is a better chance that it will spread, this love for others.
17
What is interesting about the people who demonstrate these qualities is how the average person looks at them as surreal. They are so hard to relate to. They have taken doing the right thing to a level that is unrelatable to the average person. While living in the age of Mother Theresa or Martin Luther King has been amazingly humbling, what the world needs are more regular Joe's and Jane's who simply, humbly, quietly just go next door and say " is there anything I can do to help you".
12
And the people your party support with tax and programmatic support cuts have none of these characteristics. And the people lifted up into positions of authority by your party's platform have none of these qualities. Are you satisfied that your examples of heroes work nearly in vain while the policies of your party enrich and empower the forces that make the need for them grow ever greater? Do you really think what little a few heroes can do will outweigh the damage done by your party's machine?
110
Oh, ye of little faith. Every true hero not only believes that what they do is worth doing, but they have an optimism (a love) that transcends fear and hate. Indeed, it is always the few that spread a light that others use to enlighten themselves.
I am sure that the "party" Mr. Brooks supports is in charge today. They share the name but they are not really republicans as I knew them.
1
You and your own party need a good look in the moral-mirror, WJL. Too often, you leave the needs of others to an uncaring government who sends some money without the caring and kindness only we all could give. Words don't heal and help. Actions speak much louder. Get the mote out of your own eye, find those in need and lend a hand and a heart.
2
I would say Al Gore was a moral hero of sorts. He has tried to make our planet better for future generations, and look what happened to him, how he was treated.
How about Rosa Parks? A woman so brave to forge ahead and try to make a more equal world for people, people of every color.
Martin Luther King Jr. surely was a hero. Fighting, marching, and speaking peacefully just for the right to vote? To leave his children fatherless at a gunman’s insane act, what could be worse?
Heroes need courage. They need something in their inner self, a voice, that says “Carry on, I can do this” even when they know they may be hurt, physically and otherwise.
Certainly that sense of fortitude, sense of other, sense of selflessness, sense of bravery is not beheld by the common man, nor woman.
The kids of Parkland are moral heroes. They know everyday they’re in danger because of the stand they take against those that would rather cling to a gun than use common sense so kids can go to school without being afraid.
It’s up to the rest of us less courageous to at least show some sort of appreciation. Maybe by volunteering once in awhile, helping a neighbor, even digging into our pockets and putting some coins in the veteras’ Poppy jar. Or how about showing up at an event and just listening?
Let’s be mindful of our heroes. We don’t have to be one, but we can find some generosity of heart along the way.
22
If you take MIMA's advice, you are a hero, folks, whether you like it or not. And it doesn't matter to a real hero either way. Your government and our charities can't do what you can do:. Be there.
2
Lake,
Awe, thanks.
I just returned from Selma, Alabama. I finally, after a life time dream, crossed the Pettus Bridge. I broke down afterward in the Interpretive Center across the street afterward. One of the most meaningful days in my life. I should have mentioned John Lewis in my comment and all the other 27,000+ marchers. Because of them, voter’s rights came into being. They are my truest heroes, I think.
Now if we could have other heroes who can dismantle voter suppression!
Little by little - every act counts toward being a hero.
MIMA
The essay reminds me of a Catholic priest here in Chicago. I think of him as a modern day prophet. Fr. Flager is a white priest who has served the same mostly African-American parish on the city's southside for years. Time and time again, he is in the forefront of causes from poverty, to housing, to gun violence. He is outspoken and seems tireless. A few years ago, when the bishop tried to move him to another parish, the outcry was so great that eventually he was allowed to stay at St. Sabina.
27
Thank you, Ms. Hislop. One more instance where our race has nothing to do with our mission to serve others. It's love for one another that matters. The same is true with a good and caring teacher. Gender and race have little to do with it. Loving one another doesn't mean we have to look like one another. The St. Sabina parishioners know that.
2
June 2nd I will help celebrate with my beloved uncle 60 years of a priesthood in service to poor migrants workers in Colorado and poor children in Mexico.
Unfortunately, Brooks' column calls to mind the quote from King Henry II about Becket: "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?"
From Brooks I would like to see a little less moralizing and a lot more holding his party's feet to the fire.
Mr. Brooks, for you these lines by T.S. Eliot:
'Is a new beginning, a raid on the inarticulate
With shabby equipment always deteriorating
In the general mess of imprecision of feeling,
Undisciplined squads of emotion. And what there is to
conquer
By strength and submission, has already been discovered
Once or twice, or several times, by men whom one cannot
hope
To emulate-but there is no competition-
There is only the fight to recover what has been lost
And found and lost again and again: and now, under
conditions
That seem unpropitious. But perhaps neither gain nor loss.
For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business'
Yours in search of The Upper Ground, finding solace in hearing that President and Mrs. Michelle Obama will be addressing soon the Nation on a wide variety of rich topics where Fox News does not feature.
12
Miss Ley, let's read those last two lines of Eliot again in case we missed the message: "For us there is only the trying. The rest is not our business." It's not our politics that makes us a moral hero. It's our own hands lending our own caring.
2
In an age that celebrates the lifestyles of rich and famous it is important to recognize people with unselfish core values. In the age of the internet, Twitter et al. idolatry has pervaded our society. I thank David for focusing on values more important than fame and wealth.
20
It is surprising and a sad comment on the polarization of the populace that so many of these comments choose this column which celebrates generous human spirit and selflessness as an opportunity to make political criticisms and attacks on the author. Generous spirit is the hope for solution and polarization is the enemy no matter which side you're on.
25
BB - criticizing David Brooks is good sport. Besides, he asks for it: patronizing, self-righteous, ignorant Republican that he is.
1
I can sympathize with some of David’s (and Colby’s and Damon’s) characterizations of moral heroes, with some caveats.
First, they must be financially self-sufficient at an acceptable level (for them), or they must be very young without family obligations. Otherwise, to simply “not overthink” such a commitment could be tantamount to accepting penury in late life or to condemn a family to it that they also were trying to build; or to resolve never to build a family for as long as they resolve to act on the commitment.
“They have a weird obliviousness to inferior pleasures. They are not tempted by worldly success because they are not interested in worldly success. They don’t talk much about personal happiness, because they’re not particularly interested in themselves, period.”
I’ve known and know a few such, but they’re all Roman Catholic nuns (one of whom is a cherished cousin). Hmmm, no, that’s about it.
And we need them, as many as we can get. But we also need the occasional robber baron, the other extreme, or we would still, as a global society, be picking lice out of our hair and burning the corpses of plague victims in pits just outside of town.
David basically preached an ecumenical (in the broadest sense) sermon today, whose purpose really was to bring attention to those who give and give of themselves. These are precious people, the sermon was a good one, and we SHOULD acknowledge and treasure these very rare and valuable souls.
13
Not so important to be financially self sufficient although that widens the scope of what is possible. We are looking at an attitude of mind which comes from the fundamentals of who a person is. If things, appearance etc are important then it is hard to follow this route but you are still left with the possibility that when speaking ot people your aim is build them up, encourage and support which costs nothing but can change a life.
7
Ah, the quintessential Richard: "We need robber barrons..."
I suppose in a way we do, as they are they create the bulk of the problems these moral dynamos set about to repair.
You seem to suppose all the world is like us, U.S.
In fact, we are the ugliest of exceptions. Many successful, louse-free democracies, capitalist nations among them, do not have the same issues with poverty and ill health we aggressively impose on our own people.
3
Richard,
I think you're exactly right and 'we should acknowledge and appreciate these very rare and valuable souls'. But it's a hard act to follow for the less than noble. Can we perhaps share just a few of the boldly highlighted characteristics?
I too have a 'weird obliviousness to inferior pleasures' and am 'not tempted by worldly success' for that very reason. I don't 'overthink my decisions', 'notoriously expand my goals', especially in the 'face of hardship', and am a confirmed self diagnosed habromaniac - close enough to 'insane level of optimism' to qualify I think.
But none of that makes me a saint worthy of veneration. Just as well, since virtue being its own reward, it would just be another inferior pleasure to eschew.
2
Mr. Brooks has become horrified at Trump, but has not yet progressed to being horrified at the Republican he used to be, and what his former self did to make Trump possible and more likely.
62
Ever considered how your reaction to Trump's win over HRC has made of you SUCH a hateful person? You weren't always so in this forum.
6
Trump didn't "win" over Clinton.
1. Clinton earned more votes than Trump did.
2. One-third of the way through his term of office, Trump has not been able to accomplish any of the things he promised to do "on my first day in office".
1
Richard
Let’s get this on the line. Would you describe Trump as a moral hero? If so, how? Would you consider his presidency as a trend to promote moral heroism? If so, how?
MIMA
"People who lead these lives tend to possess an insane level of optimism, a certainty that history does change for the better and that achieving justice is only a matter of time."
Americans were often characterized as hopeful and optimistic but people like Donald Trump, the leaders of the Republican Party and their ultra wealthy supporters have successfully crushed that optimism in today's America.
Those you see as heroic are often scorned or denigrated. If Jesus Christ lived today, Christianity would be characterized as an abomination by many.
It's taken a generation but hopelessness overwhelms the belief that a brighter future awaits many of us.
19
We can perhaps relate better to those who struggle within themselves to overcome odds or choose a giving spirit over a taking one. I'm more inspired to serve when I see others serve in spite of our egos. It may be more productive to observe heroes not as an exclusive group. We can all be a hero to someone else who needs us, without measuring if we qualify.
8
Dear David,
Once upon a time, here in the Bay Area, there was a fierce and articulate libertarian by the name of Gene Burns. He ran for President as a Libertarian, hosted a daily radio show of unusual intelligence, ran local charity drives, and sustained the idea that a moral world view was compatible with his party affiliation. Then 2008 happened. Gene recognized that the financial deregulation he had championed was responsible for the destruction, devoted several of his shows to analyzing where his ideology had gone wrong, and then publicly renounced his party affiliation. That was when Gene became a hero.
You have consistently written pieces that touch on important moral and ethical issues. Yet you have ignored the "elephant" in the room, namely the fact that your political party (also my former party) is no longer governed, even a little bit, by such considerations. It takes courage to give up labels that have defined us for a lifetime. We don't expect you to run an orphanage or lead a civil rights movement. How about renouncing the Republican party? For me, it was not heroic--I am not a public figure whose identity is defined by my politics. For you (as it was for Gene), it would indeed require public self-reinvention, which I daresay would make you a hero.
187
I agree that Mr. Brooks seems ready for transformation from a Republican, to whatever party best reflects his values, which seem to be head and shoulders above the usual journalists. He seems to be a misfit now in the party.
2
I keep hoping that Mr. Brooks along with the likes of Gov Kasich of Ohio will rebuild a thinking, fact-based moderate Republican brand, whether that's reclaiming the existing party or starting a new one. (Where is that party that started the EPA instead of destroying it?) There is merit in constructive opposition in a democracy.
Perhaps Mr Brooks just needs more time adrift to codify his thinking. A storm or fire as destructive as Trump causes its damage in minutes or days, while rebuilding your home takes months.
I'll pulling for you Mr. Brooks!
3
The individual selfless person can only do so much. We need compassionate public policy. David Brooks is a political pundit and this should be his focus if he wants to help the most people.
31
Government should embody the qualities of the moral hero described here. Certainly Republicanism does not. I can't understand why David Brooks is still a Republican.
36
Because he is a hypocritical shill.
2
"...their self-identity is fused with a moral ideal." THIS, people, defines a person's integrity.
10
How do moral heroes mesh with moral societies, moral institutions, moral teaching? How does it happen that Christ unfortunately leads to Crusades, Allah to ISIS, etc etc??
Every so often Justice & Equality combine in good governance and everyone prospers spiritually and economically for a while. But it seems to be an unstable success, Why is that?
The formula for success is known. Its rewards are known. Its implementation has occurred and is possible.
But its continued practice is elusive.
11
David Brooks’s article resonates. As a third generation public school teacher (40 years in my case) and friend of many nurses and social workers, his analysis describes my colleagues through the decades and those who continue on our path today.
20
Well I'll be, a Brooks column that actually makes sense. The stopped clock is finally right about something. What I find disturbing, and Brooks avoids mentioning, is that the people he describes are not only sorely lacking on the conservative side of things lately but indeed any who attempt to behave according to a moral compass are viciously demonized by their fellow conservatives.
It used to be that a moral compass was comfortable pointing both left and right, the moral actions were acknowledged and welcomed without ideological rancor. But that time is long gone.
The Left has problems with tending to sound superior or touting their particular moral bona fides but at least there are those acting on principal in those ranks instead of ideology.
Of course the real moral heroes are those we never hear about, who don't blow their own horn or tout their achievements, and given who is heading the conservative side of things right now there is little room for real moral heroes of any sort on that side of the political ledger. Here' s hoping that changes before it is too late.
10
This column oddly distills why I find myself dissatisfied with so many similar Brooks offerings like this - which I like.
Where is this same voice in calling to account the utter absence of these behaviors in the political team he has been fronting for decades now?
Grass roots good deeds are surely a good thing. But equally, this same level of humanitarian commitment should be demanded of our leadership and our government.
While I detested W as president, he is evolving into an interesting emeritus voice, unafraid to confront his friends and allies on this very point. I wish Brooks would give me the same opportunity to appreciate his leadership. This is that moment.
61
David, forget about a lifetime of moral heroism--how about a moment of moral heroism? We face one of the greatest threats in the history of the humankind--climate change. The lives of billions rely on us to act now, and you have the platform to reach millions of Americans. Conservatives might even listen to one of their own. Come on, David, you have more power to reach an audience in a single column than many of your moral heroes have in a lifetime. If they inspire you, why not pay them homage by stepping up and speaking the truth? Isn't saving the world at least worth a try?
100
@kim
I completely agree with your comment with one minor adjustment. The population explosion is the root cause. Climate change is just one of many looming disasters driven by overpopulation. Population for example drives pollution, resource depletion, loss of habitat, accelerated species extinction, etc. The population at 7.6 billion, and increasing by 80 million annually (eg. pop. of Germany) is unsustainable.
12
I hope that Mr. Brooks answers the call, but not for the reason you stated. Being a good steward is simply appropriate. We can control our intentions. While results follow intentions, they are not ours to give. Experience teaches us that results might be what we expect, but not always. Just as the people Mr. Brooks talked about in his article, those who struggle tirelessly aren’t concerned with results, but process. They continue because it’s the right thing to do.
1
Every U.S. citizen should donate to Planned Parenthood and The Population Connection (formerly ZPG).
It's too bad more of our public servants in America, particularly the ones who claim to care for ordinary Americans and say they want to improve our lives, who claim to stand for family values and want to make the family stronger, aren't moral heroes of some sort. And it's even sadder that the party Mr. Brooks loves most, the Greasy Obnoxious Patriarchs, no longer has a moral backbone.
We don't need more moral heroes in America. We need a government that functions for us, works for us, and doesn't give moral support to indefensible actions by the richest corporations when they pollute our environment, overcharge us for medication, try to have government deregulate them or shield them from responsibility after they steal our money. We need a president in the White House instead of a popinjay, a real attorney general rather than an imp, and a Congress that remembers who its constituents are rather than who its donors are. Moral heroes cannot replace a defective government.
79
I may add to David Brook's analysis of the identity and characteristics of a hero, the reality that this individual often goes unnoticed, is not a Mother Teresa or a MLK, Jr. or a Gandhi. He or she is the parent with a child who has cancer or cerebral palsy; the wife or husband whose spouse has Alzheimer's or Parkinson's Disease; the child who carries on in spite of a mom or dad with substance abuse problems. The hero is that poor Black or Brown-skinned individual who overcomes the worst that life hands her or him to achieve those aspired dreams while embracing others of all socio-economic groups with no resent or envy. Yet what seems to be a mundane existence is instead courageous and brave, not self-absorbed but loving and caring. These heroines and heroes respect all life, and look around and beyond themselves and understand that no one has it easy, that they are not alone, and that they are connected in their humanity.
62
@kathy
Please leave mother Theresa of your list in the future. Hitchens captured the true essence of this lady in one of his books, can't remember which one at the moment.
4
Okay, will do....will take your word for it.
Some understand that nothing belongs to them, not health or wealth or life, and they don't pretend it does. Instead they share themselves, their lives, and the things that come their way.
Even as Brooks acknowledges that the people whom he admires dislike being described as extraordinary, he insists on calling them moral heroes.
But perhaps to them, greed, selfishness, and cruelty are extraordinary to life, not people who live in simple reality.
13
Its great to have heroes but more important for the rest of us to live lives that will be good examples for the next generation. And I see much of that among my friends across the political spectrum. Our children learn from watching us, both good and bad.
10
Lenin also thought of himself as a moral hero. No doubt Osama bin Laden did too. This is a very thoughtful column, but it needs to be pointed out that the qualities David so admires can, and often do, terminate in extremism.
13
I believe what we call as moral heroism, to moral heroes just appears as good sense or clarity of perception.
This is because what we mean by morality is something like, adherence to the hidden laws that favor constructive action, wisdom, intelligent life, and harmony over their opposites.
"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
So it is as senseless to live against the "hidden" moral laws alluded to by MLK and others as it is to live against the laws of gravity or aerodynamics.
We are all free to live as we wish, but the moral heroes among us are those who have understood deeply that it is in our life's interests to obey the laws of the universe as best as we can sensibly discern them.
This is and has been the path to anything that can be called as human progress.
So just imagine what would be possible if we all strove to attain to the moral wisdom of humanity's heroes, like MLK, Einstein, the Buddha, and countless others who have been the best among us.
With all the amazing technology and cultural wealth we've inherited from our predecessors, I think it's possible to arrive in a world that is significantly improved over the one we currently inhabit.
reddit.com/r/Autodivestment
6
David Brooks is a model of thoughtful, intelligent commentary and this is an example of it. The heroes he points to are really ordinary men and women who do extraordinary things. They are an example and a challenge to the rest of us to do all the good we can whenever we can. And this transcends and could transform any politics if we work to make it so.
14
Not everyone can be a selfless, capable moral hero. An individual may not have the time, the talent or the resources to devote their lives to being a role model and moral entrepreneur for others.
So we look for people to represent our wants and needs, and we elect them. We succeeded with Barack Obama. He had the grace, intelligence, empathy and demeanor to lead the nation.
Unfortunately, Republicans stonewalled his every move. They exploded with fury at his passing Obamacare. They led not by constructive dialog and action, but by the endless filibuster of those things.
Only a government can provide for the needs of all of its people. There aren't enough moral heroes to go around, and their efforts could never be coordinated to reach every place that they're needed.
Government is supposed to do that. And a democracy would seem to be the ideal vehicle for it's successful implementation.
But what happened was that people who exemplified the opposite of all the moral virtues pandered to the angry, the resentful and the uninformed. They elected the leaders of this dismal pack as their representatives, and we're living with the consequences.
Mr. Brooks should send this column to the conservative cohort, and those who can read should ask themselves how they've contributed to the empowerment of the people who elected them. It would be nice to see how they felt they were measuring up.
312
"Only a government can provide for the needs of all of its people. There aren't enough moral heroes to go around, and their efforts could never be coordinated to reach every place that they're needed."
This is the fundamental difference between progressives and conservatives. I personally believe in small government and if we have too few moral heroes out there, we need to get out there and recruit them. I do not look to government for my relief and neither should you. Thanks.
1
You look to the government for clean air, water, roads to travel on, military and police protection, and to take care of those citizens who are unable to care for themselves. The people who declare themselves self-sufficient tend to avoid the mote in their own eye.
Why not try being a moral hero yourself, instead of declaring what we all should do? Armchair advice is the easiest given.
But we can all try. And at the least, we can do our best to do no harm.
4
I once read an essay by Gary Snyder in which he described people I'd consider moral heroes as "anonymous bodhisattvas who keep the human family together." The term describes most every teacher or nurse I've ever met. Moral heroism doesn't happen in front of the cameras, but places where nobody is looking, or cares, in simple acts of kindness that are the only thing that makes life tolerable.
260
It's interesting that you mention teachers and nurses who do so much for such little pay.
12
David Brooks often writes eloquently about the importance of kindness, courage and honesty for society, but by the end of his columns he generally finds a path back to a political party that shares few of those values.
Granted, worldly endeavors such as politics are not the grounds where one looks for genuine goodness, but the modern Republican Party has managed to compile an unusually nasty record for that field.
152
Len, There are always people like you who consistently criticize Brooks' columns not because of anything he writes but because of his conservative background. Here, for instance, you claim, by the end of his columns he generally finds a path back to a political party that shares few of those values." Please show us where he does that here.
2
This is an excellent and timely article of paramount importance. From what I have read and observed, it is also extremely accurate.
In the interviews that I have seen of Medal of Honor winners, virtually all of them say they were just doing their job. Many say their comrades who did not survive were the real heroes, or that what they did was only possible with the support of those around them.
Thank you for writing this.
10
I suppose if media & politics & entertainment weren't working so hard to tell everyone that we live in a unified "meritocracy" which designates everyone's worth, & rewards it in the only currency that anyone cares about . . . then maybe there would be more people willing to be irresponsible, impractical, & helpful.
11
Well. Mother Theresa, Gandhi and the like certainly enjoyed the limelight. I celebrate the anonymous guys and gals who give me a friendly hello when they take my toll the highway. Technology may replace toll taking, but the positive energy put forth by certain toll takers can never be replaced.
20
Thanks for the memory; I lived in Westport, CT when 95 still collected tolls; you did get to know the toll takers; they did say good-morning. Perhaps the automatic tolls were more efficient; however, something human in the daily commute disappeared.
6
We are going to need some actual Republican moral heroes, now, Mr. Brooks.
We do have a few -- Robert Mueller comes to mind, a real hero, a man who served with honor in Vietnam winning numerous medals for bravery.
But, who will be the Elliot Richardson of our time? In May 1973, as Nixon’s Attorney General, Richardson appointed a special prosecutor named Archibald Cox. On Saturday, October 20, 1973, Nixon ordered Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson resigned rather than carry out the order.
Now President Trump has demanded an investigation, into his investigators.
Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, caved on Trump's demand today. Wasn't it only a few weeks ago that Rosenstein spoke publicly about not being extorted?
“There are people who have been making threats, privately and publicly, against me for quite some time,” Rosenstein said at a Law Day event at the Newseum in Washington. “I think they should understand by now the Department of Justice is not going to be extorted. We’re going to do what’s required by the rule of law.”
These are times that reveal character.
What's the moral character of your Republican Party, Mr. Brooks?
204
"These are times that reveal character." So true. We've witnessed the character of our leaders. I'm afraid we are in dire straits. Our vote is our hope.
27
"I’ve been lucky enough to be around a lot of people who I would regard as moral heroes. They spend their lives fighting poverty, caring for the young or the sick..."?
In other words, they spend their time doing things that the Republicans and so-called "conservatives" hold in contempt! Caring about and fighting poverty (vs demonzing the poor!) and caring about / for the sick (and not being involved with the Healthcare Industry to make big bucks off the sick!) and not trying to trash their health-care, health, and general standard of living!
245
Indeed. One of the things that always puzzled me was when Republicans mocked Obama for being a "community organizer." But Obama went to Harvard Law School and was president of the Harvard Law Review. He could have picked literally any six-figure corporate law job in the country and quickly paid down his student loans while buying expensive cars, vacations, houses. Instead, he chose to be a community organizer right out of law school, helping poor people and eventually running for local political office.
The fact that this dedication and basic decency -- this moral backbone when tempted by piles of money -- made him a Republican laughing stock says much about the Republican party.
26
Rachel, well said! I was one of President Obama's community organizers--both campaigns. Uplifting, twice-in-a-lifetime experience.
Thank you.
It doesn't say "much". It says it all.
Mr. Brooks, Given that you held Obama at arms length for 8 years while he expanded health care coverage, addressed climate change, and sought to help children stranded by our immigration system (and the economic system that exploits laborers who have no political representation); given all this, now that your party, the Republican party, has brought us to Trump and weekly shootings, and daily videos of harassment for being suspiciously hued or speaking Spanish... Could we just possibly get you to focus your mind on addressing the five-alarm fire that is your Republican party? You're a conservative commentator, you get paid to address the utter desolation conservatives are bringing to the country. Please stop running away from your responsibilities! Imagine that the immigrants being rounded up were, say, a religious minority dear to your heart or an ethnic group you might have a personal connection with. Whatever it takes to find some compassion and outrage.
507
Thank you, Robert. You speak my mind.
David often speaks with forked tongue. David would like to think there are sufficient moral heroes to care for the needy and to bring fairness and justice to the disaster of an economic system that undermines our democracy.
He can't bear the thought that government and socialism (taxing the all / operating programs for the all) is quite capable. . Witness our military - best on the planet and an excellent example of socialism at work.
David's people have undermined education and health care (and thus our democracy) at every turn and David has the audacity to decorate himself with the feathers of heroes. Shame on David
19
Based upon his appearances on NPR, Brooks seems to have gradually embraced the dystopian future his party has fashioned for us. He makes nice-nice in his OpEds on this page, but then descends into the abyss that is the Republican Party. He and Stephens make quite a pair on this page. Yet, we never hear from Chomsky or Hedges.
Thank you for holding his feet to the fire, but I suspect it is an exercise in futility.
17
Hey stop picking on David. The replies here are bait and switching.
David's piece is on what moral heroes are made of not what amoral heroes are made of like Trump.
Besides David is no Trump supporter.
If you want to know how to deal with Trump, listen to what David said about how heroes deal with adversity, also read my post re it.
3
Mr. Brooks, could you please get off your mountain and join us down here in this hellscape where our country's institutions are being daily eroded?
432
It is entirely possible that Mr. Brooks is suggesting what is required to reverse such erosion.
10
Gary, I think you are pretty much on the button. But, I also think Mr. Brooks will not come down.
12
Alan, I disagree. Mr. Brooks is not making useful suggestions. He is failing to use the platform he has to engage in the struggle. He is writing book reports for a B average in social studies. He is fiddling while Rome burns.
Wonder what Trump would think of this; McConnell, Ryan, Congress too.
25
Do around others, as you'd have them do around you...
5
They are NOT afraid. Not afraid of ridicule, not afraid of being ostracized, not afraid of being shunned, not afraid of persecution, or even prosecution. One fine day, I WILL join that group, when and where I'm most needed.
7
Moral heroes are selfless, putting a cause above themselves.
Such individuals deserve to be recognized as such, but hero is an awfully high bar for most of us.
It would be less intimidating to approach morality as the things we can do in the course of our lives which would help others or set a good example.
13
Morality is only achieved in one way? What about the forces ganged against morality - how does that dictate ones morals? Were the Dakota pipeline protesters less moral because they 'were not hedgehogs"...This is just a bunch of silly garbage. Why NYT continues to give this aged trumpminister any contract for pay for thoughts is beyond me.
87
"Ouch"!
9