Quin, your post — lamenting the continued admiration for Tom Brady and the Clintons in spite of their known character flaws — reminds me of this excellent column by David Brooks, where he discusses the difference between “résumé virtues” and “eulogy virtues.” Brooks explains:
It occurred to me that there were two sets of virtues, the résumé virtues and the eulogy virtues. The résumé virtues are the skills you bring to the marketplace. The eulogy virtues are the ones that are talked about at your funeral — whether you were kind, brave, honest or faithful. Were you capable of deep love?
We all know that the eulogy virtues are more important than the résumé ones. But our culture and our educational systems spend more time teaching the skills and strategies you need for career success than the qualities you need to radiate that sort of inner light. Many of us are clearer on how to build an external career than on how to build inner character.
When I see continued admiration for successful people who are also relentlessly dishonest and dishonorable, I’m reminded of the playground trash talk of my childhood — where arguments were often settled by a simple word, “scoreboard.” Winners win. Losers lose. Little else matters. Harry Reid recently offered his own version of “scoreboard” when he refused to apologize for repeatedly claiming that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid taxes in ten years — a plainly false claim. Reid’s infamous response? “Romney didn’t win, did he?“
In an increasingly secular nation, it’s not all that surprising that millions of Americans are apparently dismissive of values that may require a degree of self-sacrifice. People of all faiths and no faith struggle with pride and selfishness (Harry Reid, after all, is Mormon). But as the proportion of “nones” — the religiously unaffiliated — continues to rise, it will be increasingly difficult to appeal to shared, transcendent values to hold our leaders and role models to basic standards of honor and decency.