Readings: David Brooks's Moral List

The right temperament? Dwight Eisenhower gives the order of the D-Day. `Full victory-nothing else' to paratroopers in England.

When I first spotted David Brooks’s “A Moral Bucket List,” an excerpt from his new book on morality, The Road to Character, which appeared in the New York Times (Apr 12), I zipped through it quickly without giving it a chance to sink in. Today’s letters page (Apr 19) with 8 responses sent me back to a slow reading of the original.

To me there was nothing unusual about the Times op-ed page giving space to moral issues. And they have long had a Catholic voice on that page, back to William Shannon and John Cogley, and today a half dozen of the columnists have Catholic or similar religious backgrounds. My favorite champion of morality in public life, however, was always Anthony Lewis, who was fearless in exposing the immorality of the Vietnam War and always accepted my invitations to speak at Jesuit universities.


But Brooks was different in that his essay dealt less with public issues than with our private lives. And one of his readers responded that Brooks the journalist has no right to tell us how to save our own souls or to worry us with his concerns about his own. The reader (Robert E. Silverman) does not know about the whole history of crusading journalism’s efforts to raise public morality.

Brooks, who says he wants to save his own soul, explains his quest as a search for people with an “inner light, humility, who are not thinking about themselves. These are people with not “resume” virtues, that make them look good in the marketplace, but “eulogy” virtues, the ones to be remembered at your funeral. The people with these qualities were not born with them, they made themselves into someone new by their generosity, enforced by their humility.

His list of exemplars is idiosyncratic, not your usual religious martyrs or heroes. You’d think one would find at least a few role models in the Old and New Testaments, with the prophets or Jesus or the saints. But if he has read and considered any of this material, he doesn’t tell us. He learns to control his temper from Dwight Eisenhower, who wrote the names of those he hated on slips of paper and threw them in the garbage. This freed him, says Brooks, to lead the army and the nation with an even temperament.

He admires Dorothy Day who, he says, “led a disorganized life when she was young,” drinking and carousing; but the birth of her daughter taught her love, which “decenters the self.” With this love, wrote Dorothy Day, came “the need to worship, to adore.” Brooks tells us she became a Catholic, started a radical newspaper, and opened settlement houses for the poor. Brooks does not tell us that Dorothy Day also loved the church, took strength from the Eucharist and went to jail rather than participate in an air raid drill.

Brooks admires Frances Perkins, a progressive activist who was transformed by witnessing the Triangle Shirtwaist fire to fight the cause for workers rights and joined Franklin D. Roosevelt’s cabinet. One of the letter writers, (Dean Weber, an Episcopal priest) reminds us that Perkins was also a devout Episcopalian, who found her calling to government service in her deep religious faith. Brooks also admires George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans) a great novelist whose life was a mess until she met George Lewes, who was married but estranged from his wife. In spite of his wife, she joined him for life and he helped her become a great writer. (Maybe if I had time to research the case I’d be more enthusiastic for “Eliot” as a role model.)

Brooks concludes that when commencement speakers tell us to “be true to yourself,” we should rather be true to matching our talent to the “world’s greatest needs.” I like to think that the graduates of Jesuit schools already identify “themselves” with the world’s needs. It’s not clear how this search for virtue will affect Brook’s columns and PBS commentaries. Since he is so short on religious research as a an instrument of building character, I’d urge him to read Pope Francis’s encyclical, “The Joy of the Gospel,” which as E.J. Dionne points out has drawn attention for its condemnation of “trickle down” economics. As a system that “expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power.” In short, personal character inevitably expresses itself in politics and economics for the welfare—or the suffering—of our fellow men and women. 

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.


The latest from america

 10.17.2018 Pope Francis greets Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago before a session of the Synod of Bishops on young people, the faith and vocational discernment at the Vatican Oct. 16. (CNS photo/Vatican Media)
“We take people where they are, walking with them, moving forward,” Cardinal Blase Cupich said.
Michael J. O’LoughlinOctober 20, 2018
Catherine Pakaluk, who currently teaches at the Catholic University of America and holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University, describes her tweet to Mr. Macron as “spirited” and “playful.”
Emma Winters October 19, 2018
A new proposal from the Department of Homeland Security could make it much more difficult for legal immigrants to get green cards in the United States. But even before its implementation, the proposal has led immigrants to avoid receiving public benefits.
J.D. Long-GarcíaOctober 19, 2018
 Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, then nuncio to the United States, and then-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, are seen in a combination photo during the beatification Mass of Blessed Miriam Teresa Demjanovich at the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, N.J., Oct. 4, 2014. (CNS photo/Gregory A. Shemitz)
In this third letter Archbishop Viganò no longer insists, as he did so forcefully in his first letter, that the restrictions that he claimed Benedict XVI had imposed on Archbishop McCarrick—one he alleges that Pope Francis later lifted—can be understood as “sanctions.”
Gerard O’ConnellOctober 19, 2018