In Search of Dignity

This is just too thoughtful and thought provoking not to re-publish. And there is certainly an argument to be made for reviving dignity (or establishing a new sense of social dignity) through civic engagement, public service, time spent at the benefit of others. Thoughts?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Op-Ed Columnist

In Search of Dignity
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: July 6, 2009

When George Washington was a young man, he copied out a list of 110 “Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation.” Some of the rules in his list dealt with the niceties of going to a dinner party or meeting somebody on the street. “Lean not upon anyone,” was one of the rules. “Read no letter, books or papers in company,” was another. “If any one come to speak to you while you are sitting, stand up,” was a third.

But, as the biographer Richard Brookhiser has noted, these rules, which Washington derived from a 16th-century guidebook, were not just etiquette tips. They were designed to improve inner morals by shaping the outward man. Washington took them very seriously. He worked hard to follow them. Throughout his life, he remained acutely conscious of his own rectitude.

In so doing, he turned himself into a new kind of hero. He wasn’t primarily a military hero or a political hero. As the historian Gordon Wood has written, “Washington became a great man and was acclaimed as a classical hero because of the way he conducted himself during times of temptation. It was his moral character that set him off from other men.

”Washington absorbed, and later came to personify what you might call the dignity code. The code was based on the same premise as the nation’s Constitution — that human beings are flawed creatures who live in constant peril of falling into disasters caused by their own passions. Artificial systems have to be created to balance and restrain their desires.

The dignity code commanded its followers to be disinterested — to endeavor to put national interests above personal interests. It commanded its followers to be reticent — to never degrade intimate emotions by parading them in public. It also commanded its followers to be dispassionate — to distrust rashness, zealotry, fury and political enthusiasm.

Remnants of the dignity code lasted for decades. For most of American history, politicians did not publicly campaign for president. It was thought that the act of publicly promoting oneself was ruinously corrupting. For most of American history, memoirists passed over the intimacies of private life. Even in the 19th century, people were appalled that journalists might pollute a wedding by covering it in the press.

Today, Americans still lavishly admire people who are naturally dignified, whether they are in sports (Joe DiMaggio and Tom Landry), entertainment (Lauren Bacall and Tom Hanks) or politics (Ronald Reagan and Martin Luther King Jr.).

But the dignity code itself has been completely obliterated. The rules that guided Washington and generations of people after him are simply gone.

We can all list the causes of its demise. First, there is capitalism. We are all encouraged to become managers of our own brand, to do self-promoting end zone dances to broadcast our own talents. Second, there is the cult of naturalism. We are all encouraged to discard artifice and repression and to instead liberate our own feelings. Third, there is charismatic evangelism with its penchant for public confession. Fourth, there is radical egalitarianism and its hostility to aristocratic manners.

The old dignity code has not survived modern life. The costs of its demise are there for all to see. Every week there are new scandals featuring people who simply do not know how to act. For example, during the first few weeks of summer, three stories have dominated public conversation, and each one exemplifies another branch of indignity.

First, there was Mark Sanford’s press conference. Here was a guy utterly lacking in any sense of reticence, who was given to rambling self-exposure even in his moment of disgrace. Then there was the death of Michael Jackson and the discussion of his life. Here was a guy who was apparently untouched by any pressure to live according to the rules and restraints of adulthood. Then there was Sarah Palin’s press conference. Here was a woman who aspires to a high public role but is unfamiliar with the traits of equipoise and constancy, which are the sources of authority and trust.

In each of these events, one sees people who simply have no social norms to guide them as they try to navigate the currents of their own passions.

Americans still admire dignity. But the word has become unmoored from any larger set of rules or ethical system.

But it’s not right to end on a note of cultural pessimism because there is the fact of President Obama. Whatever policy differences people may have with him, we can all agree that he exemplifies reticence, dispassion and the other traits associated with dignity. The cultural effects of his presidency are not yet clear, but they may surpass his policy impact. He may revitalize the concept of dignity for a new generation and embody a new set of rules for self-mastery.

A version of this article appeared in print on July 7, 2009, on page A23 of the New York edition.

Looking forward to a day ON, not a day OFF

Are you just now finding yourself recovering from the post-election frenzy, or starting to already tune out to the pre-inauguration hype, or maybe you think the most interesting development seen on CNN politics recently has been Dr. Sanjay Gupta's nomination to U.S. Surgeon General?

Yah me too. So, while you could spend next Monday's holiday catching up on CSPAN. But what better way to become re-engaged in the state of our nation, by directly volunteering to improve the state of our state. (Which, by the way Governor Patrick will be delivering his speech Wednesday January 15th--remember to tune in!)

President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Biden have launched a National Day of Service to celebrate the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. and enable Americans to make an ongoing commitment to volunteer service and civic engagement on the eve of this new administration.

The National Day of Service is a mass-organizing effort to engage volunteers to help organizations in communities across the nation. In Boston and Massachusetts, field directors hope to have hundreds of service projects ready to go over the course of this coming three day weekend--January 17-19. Many local groups have created new events to assist organizations with one-time opportunities and others have requested help with specific, ongoing projects.

To find out how to get involved, find an opportunity in your neighborhood, and sign up to volunteer--the Presidential Inaugural Committee has launched a website where all of these events can easily be searched by zip code. Visit www.usaservice.org to see more details.

Honestly, what else do you have to do next Monday, January 19th? You weren't really planning on taking the day off to do laundry, catch up on sleep, continue to work, or watch the new episodes of 24 all day, were you? Why not help organize goods at a Longwood food bank, clean up the North End streets and waterfront, learn more about online youth mentoring Downtown, improve and beautify a Charlestown community center, help repair a neighborhood house in Cambridge, assemble care packages in Somerville, improve a family center in Dorchester, help care for shelter animals in JP, and countless (seriously) other projects around town.

There are so many families out there for which Monday will not be a holiday off, but I know for me, I'll be making the most of mine by helping out in some small way.

Casting About: Your MA State Ballot

So, in case you hadn't hear all the buzz, next Tuesday we head to the polls and cast a vote in what many are calling, "arguably the most important election in a generation."

Of course, each successive election is arguably the most important as it fundamentally changes the face of our nation and course of our state. Just like walking into a stranger's Halloween party, wearing a questionable costume--it never hurts to know a little bit more ahead of what you're getting yourself into this election, as there are some key ballot questions on the Massachusetts statewide this year. Ballot measures may be placed before voters by citizen petition, and while we elect our representatives to enact laws--many of the questions this year would never have seen light had they come through Beacon Hill.

Studies indicate that most people tend to vote on gut instinct when they step behind the curtain and struggle to decipher obscure legislative wording or complicated forms--so it all comes down to first reactions--taxes bad, dogs good, and pot, well that is anyone's guess. Not that there is anything wrong with instinct, as it akin to ideology; but to help you vote informed, here is a rundown on the 3 significant ballot measures you'll be seeing November 4th--and if fair and balanced wasn't already copyrighted, I'd like to think this is.

Ballot Question 1: Abolish State Income Tax

A YES VOTE would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65 percent for the tax year beginning in 2009, and would eliminate the tax for all tax years after 2010.

A NO VOTE would make no change in state income tax laws.

This proposed law would halve the personal income tax rate and then eliminate it all together. At stake is $12.5 billion in annual revenues, or about 40 percent of the $28 billion state budget. Proponents claim the measure would provide an average savings of $3,700 to each taxpayer, reduce government wasteful spending, and boost the economy. Opponents say it would reduce the capabilities of government to provide services, harm the economy, and result in increases in other forms of taxes.

The Commonwealth could of course tighten its belt, and skip seeing the next Bond movie, though it would require cuts in spending and raising sales to make up some revenue. According to a "best-case" assessment by the non-partisan Beacon Hill Institute, budget cuts for state and local governments may only be of a magnitude of - 12%, job creation would occur, and the resulting average increase in household income (after increases in sales taxes) might be closer to $1,500 per taxpayer. The study assumed a healthy economy and identified spending reductions including funding for fire protection, housing and community development, public welfare, and sewer services.

Another study prepared by the Massachusetts's Taxpayers Foundation and funded by local business associations, calculated the average return by income brackets. While the average savings would likely be $3,700, taxpayers earning under $50k would save $1,300 returned, those earning under $75k would receive $2,500, and those earning over $100k would see a minimum of $12,500.

The study argues that the effect of the measure would be to switch taxation from a progressive income based system, to a regressive sales tax system. The majority of business associations, faith-based organizations, community organizations, institutions, and other service providing or receiving groups in Mass oppose this ballot question, on grounds that it would decimate the ability of government to provide basic services and enable social and financial mobility. This question isn't about your wallet, it is about your instinct for the role of public goods in society.

A poll released Thursday by Suffolk University found 59% of voters oppose the elimination of the state income tax, while 26% support it, and 16% were undecided. In 2002, a similar ballot measure went before voters and failed with 48.2% voting no, and 39.9% voting yes.


Ballot Question 2: Decriminalize Marijuana Possession

A YES VOTE would replace criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties.

A NO VOTE would make no change in state criminal laws concerning possession of marijuana.

This proposed law would change existing criminal penalties to civil penalties, for possession of relatively small quantities of marijuana. New enforcement would include issuing citations, would exclude information from the state's criminal record information system, and would impose civil penalties of $100 and require drug awareness programs.All other marijuana-related illegal activity, such as Intent to Distribute or Driving Under the Influence charges will remain criminal.

Advocates for the measure regard it as sensible drug policy and point to benefits of cost reductions for law enforcement and the judicial system. Additionally, proponents cite permanent criminal records for possession as an unfair barrier to future employment.

Decriminalization for possession is opposed by law enforcement, as opponents suggest that civil penalties condone substance abuse and criminal activity--citing correlations that nearly 40% of criminal arrestees test positive for marijuana. Under current law, criminal penalties for possession include up to six months in jail,a $500 fine, and a permanent criminal record is filed. Opponents also suggest ounce is potentially more than 100 individually rolled joints, though in states and provinces where decriminalization has occurred that is a standard quantity for civil infractions.

So, even if Clinton did in fact inhale, international evidence suggest marijuana use doesn't lead to the kind of activity seen on those entertaining US public service anti-drug commercials. And of course alcohol use is legal and arguably more dangerous, so ask yourself what is right or wrong, and how much is too much?

A Suffolk University poll released October 23rd indicated found 51 percent in support of civil penalties, while 32 percent oppose, and 16 percent were undecided.


Ballot Question 3: Ban Greyhound Racing

A YES VOTE would prohibit dog racing where any form of betting n the speed or ability of dogs occurs, effective 2010.

A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws governing dog racing.

Dog racing has taken place in Massachusetts for over 70 years, though now only takes place in one track in Revere and one in Raynham. For whatever reasons, people seem to enjoy horses more, maybe it is the mint juleps and big hats. From 2000 to 2007, these tracks paid over $40 million to the Commonwealth in taxes and fees related to racing activities. The volume of gambling on greyhounds has declined significantly since the 1990s and the value of betting over the last five years is down at least 37% at Raynham and 65% at Revere. Racing is legal and active in 15 states, while 34 states have explicit bans against dog racing. In Massachusetts, a similiar measure was defeated in 2000, with 48.6% voting against a ban.

Advocates of the measure consider dog racing to be inhumane and point to statistics showing that in Massachusetts more than 700 racing greyhounds have been injured since 2002, including dogs who suffered broken legs, paralysis and several fatalities.

Opponents argue that similar to horse racing, the greyhounds are not owned by tracks and both parties must follow heavily regulated animal welfare provisions. Greyhounds have become a rallying point for many organizations recently, and while PETA spokes models aren't posing naked with dogs yet, this is as much about the people who are more likely to gamble and who are affected by legalized gambling, as it is about the welfare of animals.

A Suffolk University poll released October 23rd indicated that 44% of those polled were in favor of a ban, while 43% were opposed; another 13% were undecided.

Last thoughts. Bearing in mind that none of this year's questions are binding constitutional amendments; they are legally-binding initiatives that amend current state statues and cannot readily be altered by the Legislature. It all comes down to voting your instinct, though with any luck now you may just have a little more to go on. It isn't too late to become involved, visit the campaigns' websites to learn, contribute, and vote!

Related Posts: Food Drive on Voting Day; Presidential Election and Free Speech; 2008 Vote: Whys and Hows of the Electoral College; Are you making your decision based on looks?; Passive Electioneering; Presidential Election, Registering to Vote, and the Ballot Questions; Absentee Voting; Google wants you to vote