Moral Health

In a classic fiery sermon, The Honorable James David Manning asked the following question: What would make a black man go into his mother’s pocketbook and steal her very last quarter and shoot dope with it?  His answer: a lack of honor.  Of course, insofar as Manning’s point holds, it holds across all races.  Yet, there is something about his point that has quite a sting to it. Manning’s deep concern is that there is precious little honor among black men, and that rap music has contributed to the demise of honor among black men.  Here is the YouTube link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7diAnTSn9o&feature=related

Manning’s fascinating example is that of Puff Daddy using a plethora of profanity in front of his mother.  While it is marvelous that Puff Daddy bought his mother a house, the Honorable James David Manning’s point is that using plethora of profanity in her very presence is utterly dishonorable.

To be sure, it would be dishonorable if any male so behaved in front of his mother.  But Manning’s point is that how has it come to pass that a black man so behaves in front of his mother.  And we cannot have it both ways.  We cannot have it that (i) blackness has its own moral orbit which nurtures mutual respect among blacks and, at the same time, have it be true that (ii) blacks continually engage in behavior that shows a serious lack of respect for one another, above all, their parents, especially the mother.

Manning is drawing upon a very simple point, namely that from the outset a mother points her life on the line for her children in a way that has no equal on the part of the father.  Indeed, a mother can say to a child “I gave you life”, whereas it is sort of silly for a father to say such a thing.

The idea, then, is that genuine honor for a mother should be second-nature.  And what concerns Manning is that among black men it is not respect but a lack of respect that is prevalent.

Is it possible to respect one’s mother and utter a slew of profanity in her very presence?  It is difficult for me to see how that it is possible.

Now, there was a time when mothers in the black community were much respected.  So what happened?  My sense is that white guilt is part of the problem.

It goes with saying that owing to racism whites have had rather excoriating things to say about the character of blacks.  And it is an important measure of progress that whites have seen that such assessments were utterly misguided.  But from the truth that (a) some critical assessments regarding the black character were utterly misguided, what simply does not follow that (b) any and all negative assessments of a black person’s character are misguided because such assessments are necessarily tainted by racism.

With white guilt, (b) is wholeheartedly embraced.  And that has been bad for both blacks and whites alike.  There are standards of excellence that have nothing whatsoever to do with skin color.  Besides, while expressions of excellence can very across cultures, the excellences themselves may not do so at all.  Deep friendship amounts to pretty much the same across all cultures.  Nonetheless, the expression of deep friendship can vary across culture.  In the United States close male friends do not faire la bise (the kiss on each cheeck) whereas in France, doing so is not an option among many close male friends.

Honesty and respect are not different forms of excellences in the black community.  However, it is none other than white guilt that would have whites accepting the idea that a Puff Daddy uttering a slew of profanity in front of his mother is not a form of disrespect because, after all, doing so is a “black thing”.

Nothing has been more damaging to the black community than the claim that blacks subscribe to different values.  Accordingly, white guilt has done nothing other than contribute to the demise of the black community.

What happened, of course, is that the idea of black pride became a twisted notion.  There are two senses of the word pride.  The good sense of the word pride pertains to having a proper appreciation for one’s strengths.  The bad sense of the word pride is when pride amounts to none other than a form of arrogance.  Pride as a form of arrogance is always a vice and never a virtue.  Pride as a proper appreciation for one’s strengths is always a virtue and never a vice.

Black pride may very well have started out as having a proper appreciation for the strengths of black people.  However, the idea of black pride became twisted to mean arrogance.  Whites compounded the problem by supposing that the racism of the past made it unacceptable for them to be critical of blacks.  They were wrong: the racism of the past simply made it unacceptable for whites to be racist.  Nothing more; nothing less.

This brings me back to the sermon of the Honorable James David Manning.  Few things make the difference in our lives like the fact that others expect us to be excellent.  In the oddest of ways, things are worse than they were before.  Before, there were standards of excellence and white refused to believe that blacks could live up to those standards.  Blacks, however, endeavored to live up to those standards as best they could under the circumstances.

Today, in the name of being open-minded and free of racism, standards of excellence have been jettisoned across the board.  And this, unfortunately, has been called progress.  Well, there is a perverted sense in which it is; for trust has receded from social interaction across the board.  Blacks cannot trust blacks; whites cannot trust whites; and blacks and whites cannot trust one another.  With this we have none other than vapid equality.

Pastor Manning preached that honor is independent of social standing and that it occasions self-discipline in the face of temptation.  He is not a philosopher, and the words “self-respect” and “respect” more naturally come to mind.  But there is nothing to be said for being pedantic here.  For the spirit of his point is manifestly clear.  There are things that persons will not do to themselves if they have basic self-respect; and there are things that persons will not do to others if they have basic respect for them.

Nothing other than moral corrosiveness would have anyone believe otherwise.  And the fact that some blacks now think so and whites cheer them on (lest they, the whites, be called racist) should stand as a vivid reminder of the human capacity for self-deception.

For the harm that we are doing to ourselves and to one another is manifestly obvious (as when people are afraid to walk down the street in their own neighborhood); yet, we insist upon maintaining that there is no right and wrong.  At the rate we are going, there will be no one left to make that utterly asinine assertion.

Pride goeth before destruction.  What a powerful remark.  Proverbs 16:18.  To be sure, the remark comes from a book that many now consider to be outdated.  But it reflects a most profound truth.  No matter how good we are and no matter talented we have, modesty should have a place in our lives.  In particular, we should never suppose that we are above the very laws that we are engaged in enforcing—especially when we are enforcing those laws in a most public and righteous manner.

I have, of course, alluded to the fact that Governor Eliot Spitzer, who was involved in an escort service called Emperors’ Club VIP.  To many individuals, Spitzer was the very epitome of an upright attorney—someone who drew a hard line in the sand between right and wrong behavior.  I have little interest in talking about the specifics of the Spitzer scandal.  What intrigues me is the horrible moral shadow that he is casting.

As I have just noted, no one came across more righteous in terms of enforcing a certain level of public morality than Spitzer.  And when I reflect upon that truth I ask myself over and over again the following question: Who among us can hope to have the confidence of others that she or he is a truly upright person.

The damage that Spitzer has done in the public sphere lies in the fact that he has further tainted the moral-political climate, making it yet that much more reasonable for a person to be suspicious of another’s public presentation as an upright person.  And this much is unequivocally clear to me: There is a direct correlation between an intolerable society in which to live and one in which we believe that decent people do not exist or, in any case, are few and far between.  From walking down the street to making a purchase, life becomes absolutely intolerable if we cannot assume moral decency on the part of strangers.

Sustained moral decency requires among other things that persons are capable of exercising considerable self-command and foresight.  Exercising foresight is in fact a form of self-command; for one stops, as it were, and gives thought to how things are apt to play themselves out.

I am no criminal.  But I am thoughtful enough to see two things: One is that nowadays it is way too easy to leave an electronic trail regarding what we have done.  The other is that when we are engaged in inappropriate behavior with people there is a possibility that they might turn on us for reasons that we think have next to no probability of coming about.

Spitzer, as it happens, is a victim of the latter: A worker for Emperors’ Club VIP became disgruntled.  But he also left a considerable electronic trail using a cell phone and withdrawing the needed money from his bank account.

How could he not have thought that these things would not be a problem for him?  Recall the passage with which I began this essay: Pride goeth before destruction.

Foresight and self-command does not require that we be saints, and so have absolutely pure hearts.  Rather, foresight and self-command require simply that we recognize the ways in which things can go wrong (foresight) and that we have the will-power to resist taking the course of action in question given that the ways things can go wrong are evident enough (foresight).

Pride is an impediment to our exercising foresight and self-command.  More than anything, Spitzer is a victim of none other than his own pride.

I think that we are social beings and this means that to a considerable extent our powers of self-command and foresight are influenced by the moral climate of the society in which we live.  There are exceptions, to be sure.  However, the exceptions are few and between.  And my worry is that increasingly it is becoming reasonable to spurn even those who are righteous.  The principle here is “Better Safe than Sorry”.

Trust is becoming unreasonable.  And when an ever so visible and vocal person, such as Spitzer, flounders so mightily, we have an overflow of damage.  There is, of course, the damage to his personal relationship.  And that would seem rather irreparable.  In terms of the public trust, though, another major pillar in the wall of trust has been destroyed.  And that is a very bad thing for society.

Spitzer claimed that politics is not personal.  Alas, he got that unequivocally wrong.  For no matter how personal and private he would like his wrongdoing to be, a point that holds to some extent: There is the simple and inescapable truth that Eliot Spitzer’s wrongful behavior has unavoidable symbolic significance.

The lesson that we should all learn from the Spitzer scandal is that indeed modesty is a virtue.

Can we distinguish between the horrendous murder of 8 students in a Yeshiva and the behavior of the KKK during the Old south?  I am afraid not.  For Hezbollah, Hamas, and the like: Jews are niggers.  I shall say more about this presently.  To begin, though, let me say that if I had to offer a succinct characterization of the difference between Muslim Arabs and Jews in the Middle East, it would be the extent to which Muslim Arabs shamelessly celebrate the death of Jewish people.  There is no denying that Jews have killed Muslims Arabs and I am more than prepared to concede for the sake of argument that some of these deaths were unnecessary.  But I have never witnessed a public celebration on the part of Jews over the death of Muslim Arabs.

It has certainly been said by Jews that the death of this or that Muslim Arab was a good thing, given the history of murderous behavior on the part of that particular person.  But the rejoicing here has always had far more to do with the relief that the person in question would not be committing any more murders of Jews than with taking delight in his death proper.  While there may be exceptions in this regard, these exceptions prove the rule.  I know this from what I seen in the media and from what I have witnessed personally, on three different continents, in one Jewish home after another.

As I reviewed the availability of photos available on Yahoo News regarding the murder of 8 Yeshiva students, by Alaa Abu Dheim, I was simply not prepared to come across photos of Muslim Arabs celebrating the death of these 8 Yeshiva students.  And it is difficult to find words to express just how barbaric I found this to be.  This is the face of unqualified hatred and I compare it to the hatred of blacks that was personified by the Klu Klux Klan.  And it is this reality that makes it manifestly clear to me that folks like Norman Finkelstein are simply mistaken in their support of Hezbollah.

You will recall that the KKK took pure delight in the abuse and degradation of blacks—any black, no matter how old or young.  And no abuse or form of degradation was off-limits.  This delight had its own life and was independent of any benefits that might accrue to KKK members who mistreated blacks.

For Hezbollah, Jews are niggers.  You will recall that nothing pleased the KKK more than a good excuse to lynch a black.  And the same can be said for Hezbollah and its supporters.  And this truth that shows that Norman Finkelstein and his ilk are utterly misguided.

I understand political victories.  And I further understand that war sometimes necessitates death.  Not only that, I grasp that there is a deep, deep dispute between Palestinians and Israelis.  Alas, none of this would explain, let alone justify, taking unabashed delight in the killing of 8 young Jews at a Yeshiva.  None of this could explain unabashedly parading through the streets in glee over their deaths.

I understand that Jewish soldiers have been accused of attacking Muslim women and children.  I also understand that Muslim women and children have been used as shields in a public relations ploy.  This is simply fact.  I have drawn attention to this because no such explanation is available for the murder of these 8 Jewish teenagers.  They were actually studying.  And the Yeshiva was not serving as a repository for weapons or a training ground for soldiers.

The idea that for Hezbollah, and its supporters, the Jew is nothing but a Nigger is extremely illuminating; for it brings into sharp relief something that we have been overlooking, namely that for Hezbollah, Jews are to be in a subordinate position to Muslims because Jews are the apes of the Semitic peoples.  Even with the murderous attack of 8 Yeshiva students, Israel is still interested in peace talks with the Palestinians.  For Hezbollah, however, negotiating with Israel simply makes no sense because this would constitute acknowledging their humanity.

We have been supposing that the issue is one of credibility.  But this misses the mark: Animals cannot have credibility; Jews are animals; hence, Jews cannot have credibility. Thus, killing a Jew is rather like skewering an animal, and so demands parading through the streets in celebration.  This is how KKK folks behaved when they lynched a black.  Notice that not even Nazis were disposed so to behave.  Thus, in terms of public behavior, Hezbollah is far more KKK like than Nazi like.  I do not mean to be ranking one group over the other.  Rather, I am drawing attention to structural differences between the two.

Now, it is significant that I can make the claim that Hezbollah, Hamas, and the like treat Jews as if they are niggers without having to claim, on the one hand, that Jews are right about everything pertaining to the Middle East conflict and, on the other, Hezbollah and the like are wrong about everything pertaining to the conflict.  I suppose no such thing.  I suppose only that the moral posture of Hezbollah and the like is that of taking Jews to be the apes of Semitic peoples.

Finally, the issue is not to discard the Nazi paradigm of evil.  That paradigm is powerful and real enough.  However, it does not exhaust the ways in which human beings can be horrendously evil.  It is a poignant fact that the way in which Arab Muslims take to the streets to celebrate the death of Jews calls to mind the lynching of blacks by the Klu Klux Klan in the Old South.  And while this may not be Nazi-like behavior, a fact which is a source of comfort for those who support Hezbollah, it is surely morally reprehensible behavior nonetheless of a most despicable kind.  I suspect that people like Norman Finkelstein are self-deceived; for they use the fact that the behavior of Hezbollah is not all akin to the Nazi paradigm as a way of excusing Hezbollah’s behavior.  I suggest that Finkelstein and the like need only open their eyes and look beyond the Nazi paradigm to the KKK model of evil in order to see that the behavior Hezbollah, Hamas, and so forth cannot possibly be excused.

There is much in the world about which we are understandably unclear.  At this point in time, however: If there are any moral precepts, surely one of them is that there can be no excuse whatsoever for celebrating the death of 8 teenagers earnestly studying scripture, be they Muslims or Christians or Jews.  Treating Jews as niggers, there can be no question but that in the 3rd Millenium Hezbollah specializes in mocking the very idea righteousness.

Few things are more painful than having a beloved student fall from grace owing to utterly despicable behavior on the student’s part.  Surely, this is the case with Alan Dershowitz and his former student Eliot Spitzer.  Dershowitz describes Spitzer as a brilliant student; and I have no doubt that this was the case.  Everything that we have seen about Spitzer suggests that he is a man of quite considerable intellectual ability. Just so, Derhowitz’s defense of Spitzer is most disconcerting.

The claim is that he called MSNBC to offer some comments about Spitzer.  It would have been far more prudent morally if Dershowitz had remained silent.  Now, Dershowtiz’s major claim is that the United States is simply out of step with the times, because prostitution is common place throughout the world.

Well, let us suppose for the moment that Dershowitz is right.  It then follows that Spitzer’s very own behavior as attorney general was woefully inappropriate and out of step with the moral reality of things.  As we all know, it is not just Spitzer prosecuted prostitution rings, he did so with a zest and vigor that had no equal among attorney generals.  Not only that, Spitzer did so with an extraordinary sense of righteousness and moral piety. (more…)