"Gentlemen, In an Age of Narcissism and Trump"

Sydney M. Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Gentlemen, in an Age of Narcissism and Trump”

March 11, 2018

“Mr. Crawley was recognized to be a gentleman by all who knew him, high or low,

rich or poor, by those who thought well of him and by those who thought ill.”

                                                                                                Anthony Trollope (1815-1882)

                                                                                                The Last Chronicle of Barset, 1867

In Trollope’s day, an English gentleman could be identified by his bearing, his speech, education and manners. John Henry Newman (1801-1890), an Anglican priest, Oxford don and theologian who became a Catholic Cardinal, once ironically wrote: “A liberal education makes not the Christian, nor the Catholic, but the gentleman.” (At the time, less than one percent of Englishmen were university graduates.) One was either born into a class of gentlemen, or one was not. We look back with nostalgia at those days of social rigor in England. We should not. It was nigh impossible for one born into lower orders to become part of the gentry. Social stratification was almost impenetrable. We complain today about wealth and income gaps, but they are nothing compared to the social gaps that then existed. While it doesn’t always seem that way, we have evolved for the better, at least in the West. And among those changes has been increased social mobility, which provides the opportunity for any male to become a gentleman – if he chooses.

In medieval times, a “gentleman” referred to the lowest rank of English gentry – below an esquire (a young nobleman training to become a knight) and above a yeoman (a freeholder). By the 18^th Century that definition had changed. The Irish writer Richard Steele (1672-1729) suggested the term “gentleman” should “never be affixed to a man’s circumstances, but to his behavior in them.” George Washington’s “…great genius,” the historian Gordon Wood stated, “lay in his character…It was his moral character that set him off from other men.” Seventy years later, Robert E. Lee considered conduct the defining force: “The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a wrong he may have committed against him. He cannot only forgive, he can forget, and he strives to let the past be but the past.”

George Washington did not want the Presidency to be hereditary. He had no interest in the trappings of a court, but he understood the importance of respect due the office and of the moral conduct of he who held it. Richard Brookhiser wrote of Washington, age 16, copying out “110 Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior,” “…a system of courtesy appropriate to equals and near equals. When the company for whom the decent behavior was to be performed expanded to the nation, Washington was ready.”

The term “gentleman” has an old-fashioned ring, yet civility derives from gentlemanly behavior. Its absence, in part, is responsible for movements, like #MeToo. Mr. Weinstein was many things, but I doubt he was ever accused of being a gentleman. The 1997 Gentleman’s Guide to Life states: “Being male is a matter of birth. Being a man is matter of age. Being a gentleman is a matter of choice.” So, where have all the gentlemen gone? There is, after all, a need for civility, in all aspects of life, especially in Washington.

Politics has always been the art of the possible, which requires courtesy, respect and a willingness to compromise – traits common to gentlemanly behavior. But, C-SPAN, 24-hour news and talk shows elevate narcissistic tendencies within politicians – fueling the partisanship that divides us today. Yet, we know that when reasoned and respectful debate is allowed solutions emerge that reflect the broad and diverse views of the American people. It may be entertaining to hear one Senator snidely refer to his opponent as “the distinguished gentleman…” and then level insults that would give credit to Don Rickles at a Friars Club roast, but hubris should not deter reconciliation. Washington’s Rules of behavior should be read and absorbed by those we send to the nation’s capital: “turn not your back to others; submit your judgment to others with modesty; use no reproachful language; associate…with men of good character; be not forward, but friendly and courteous; think before you speak; be not tedious in discourse;” and “labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.”

When writing about today’s want of gentlemanly comportment, the dominant figure in the room is the looming presence of Mr. Trump – a man seen as the antithesis of civility and respectfulness. Thus why, you might ask, have I not joined the chorus of those who condemn him for the boor that he is? The answers lie in two parts. First, the election of 2016 did not pit a charlatan versus a paragon. It pitted a braggart against a mountebank – both are devoid of traits that make an individual a gentleman (or a lady). Thus, as one who fears the octopus-like reach of a government whose tentacles increasingly touch all aspects of our lives, I chose (as did the country) the one who was for less government and who best reflected my preferences.

Second: a year into his Administration, I like what Mr. Trump has done; though I cringe when he speaks. I like his willingness to take on Washington’s arrogant establishment and patronizing coastal progressives. I like the tax cut, the judges he has appointed, and I respect most of his cabinet appointees. I especially like the reductions in regulations that have unleashed the economy, lessened the power of unelected bureaucrats, increased employment and driven consumer confidence levels to new highs. I like his willingness to confront ISIS and to stand firm in Syria against a despicable regime, despite the confrontation it poses with Russia. I like his standing up to the administrative state that is Brussels, which relies on us for defense, yet which berates us as destabilizers. I prefer his directness in foreign affairs, as opposed to the nuanced approach of those whose livelihood depends on maintaining a sense of crisis. I like that he calls out Iran and North Korea for the exporters of terror they are, and his willingness to call Jerusalem the capital of Israel, which it is. I am not a fan of his decision about tariffs, but it remains to be seen if this was a negotiating tactic for NAFTA and other trading agreements. A gentleman he is not, and I abhor his massacring of the English language. But could a gentleman survive today’s political campaigns? I like to think so, but Mitt Romney, who is a gentleman, was ripped to shreds by President Obama and the media.

Authors have long expounded on gentlemen. Shakespeare wrote of two from Verona. Anita Loos said they prefer blondes. And P.G. Wodehouse told us what they aren’t – aunts. In his Autobiography, Mark Twain defined traits he would have needed, should he have wished to become a gentleman, (which he probably did not): “…courteous to men, faithful to friends, true to my God, and fragrance in the path I trod.”

Like King Arthur’s Knights’ search for the Holy Grail, gentleman-hood is a quest on which all men should embark. It is not birth, position or wealth. It is character: dignity, civility, virtue and respectfulness. A gentleman should be self-effacing and empathetic, intrepid in what he undertakes, humble in success and honorable in defeat. It is a portrayal that does not describe Mr. Trump, but neither does it define the patronizing media, the supercilious in Hollywood, the leeches on K Street, or smug insiders in Washington.

I am left dismayed, but not defeated. Have decency and respectfulness been subsumed by political correctness? Have arrogance and braggadocio replaced humility and decorum?  Is chivalry dead? Have identity politics and partisanship so divided us we can no longer work together? Can the establishment be challenged by one other than a Mr. Trump? In an age of narcissism, can one fight for a cause in which he believes, while adhering to Washington’s Rules of Civility? The questions and answers suggest a need for a cultural overhaul. But, I have hopes. Pendulums always swing back toward the center.