Getty Images
David Petraeus and Dwight Eisenhower
Top brass sure is brassier than it used
to be. And you have to wonder what that's about. Where did the old
culture of modesty go? Ulysses S. Grant wore four stars on his shoulder
and nothing else on his uniform. And that was a fellow who'd earned a
few medals.
Jump now to the woman who is the main focus in the Petraeus scandal,
Paula Broadwell. She was a person of impressive achievement right from
the start—high school valedictorian, West Point grad, master's degrees,
Army officer. But even that wasn't enough ribbons. In YouTube videos she
brags about her security clearance, her inside knowledge—"That's still
being vetted"—and the Ph.D. she's working on. She calls herself a
biographer, but biographers actually do something arduous—they write
biographies.
Ms. Broadwell contracted with a professional, reporter Vernon Loeb,
to organize, synthesize, think and write. On Twitter, Ms. Broadwell
describes herself as "Author . . . National Security Analyst; Army Vet;
Women's Rights Activist; Runner/Skier/Surfer; Wife; Mom!" On her website
she noted that in her free time she is an Ironman triathlete "and a
model and demonstrator for KRISS, a manufacturer of .45-caliber machine
guns." "When Paula is not on the frontlines, online, or writing lines,"
she and her husband run, ski and surf together.
My goodness. All hail. This isn't describing yourself in the best
possible light, this is bragging about yourself to a degree and in a way
that is actually half mad.
But it's kind of the way people talk about themselves now. And I have
to say, this is new. Not new in history but new as a fully developed
and enveloping national style. You know why they loved us in Europe in
World War II? I mean aside from because we won? Because they thought we
were kind of strong and silent—modest, actually—like Gary Cooper in
"Sergeant York." Now we still do ratta-tat-tat, but it's on
Facebook
FB +6.27%
and it's about how great we are.
Related Video
Columnist Bill McGurn on questions that are
likely to be raised in the House Intelligence Committee's closed session
hearing with David Petraeus on Benghazi. Photo: Associated Press
We used to worry that kids would be victims
of the self-esteem movement, that constant praise would keep them from
an honestly earned, and therefore stable, self-respect, and steer them
toward mere conceit. Now parents have it.
The other young woman in the story, Ms. Broadwell's apparent nemesis,
felt harassed when her role became known. Jill Kelley called 911 and
quickly informed the operator of her status. "You know, I don't know if
by any chance, because I'm an honorary consul general, so I have
inviolability." She suggested "diplomatic protection" might be in order.
But she isn't a diplomat, she's a lady who gives parties and knows a
lot of people. She even knows an FBI agent who opened an investigation
for her because she felt harassed by anonymous emails. This really was a
confusing part of the story. Just about everyone, certainly every
woman, in the public eye in America receives aggressive, insulting,
menacing emails. We didn't know we could get FBI investigations opened
for that! Maybe our mistake is not being honorary consuls with
inviolability.
***
These are just the players in the scandal of the week.
Have we noticed a certain lack of modesty in our political figures?
Thank goodness, therefore, for
Mitt Romney,
who in a conference call with donors said he got beat and beat bad,
that his campaign was lacking, that his gut on the big issues was
probably off, that he shouldn't have allowed his campaign to become (in
the grandiose, faux-macho lingo of campaign consultants who wish they
wore fruit salad) an air war and not a ground war, and that they were
smoked in get-out-the-vote. He added, with an eye to concerns larger
than his own, that he wanted to help the party analyze and define what
didn't work in 2012 so it would be stronger in 2016.
Sorry. Kidding! He didn't say that.
He said the administration gave "gifts" to interest groups, and the
groups appreciated the gifts, and, people being the little automatons
they are, said yes, sire, and voted for him.
In a way it was as bad as the old "47%" tape. Because it was so limited.
***
Which gets us to the president. He's looking very stern.
You don't have a problem with Susan Rice, you have a problem with me, he
says, with a scowl. He talks about the fiscal cliff but not in a way
that shows a real eagerness for compromise. He does not define areas of
potential give, potential progress. He won, after all. He doesn't have
to.
What is needed is bigness, magnanimity. It's not all about him, his
party, it's not all about self. It is not even all about one's deepest
political intentions. There are other ways and schedules for moving
forward there.
Get the Republicans leaders on the Hill together. Suggest in subtle
ways you'll let them save face. Quietly acknowledge you weren't the best
negotiator in the world the first time 'round, and neither were they.
Maybe no one was quite their best. But the nation faces a real challenge
and there will be economic repercussions in mishandling it. "Let's make
a deal and let's make it quickly. We all have to play games but not too
much and not too long."
And mean it. And deal.
This would be good for the president, good for his legacy, good for
the country. This is a man who could show that in a time of crisis he
and Speaker John Boehner could re-enact Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill.
Which is something the country would be relieved to see. "Look—it still
works!"
It might take some of the bitterness, some of the long, grinding, partisan poison out of the system.
Might we see that?
Or just instead the stern face, the old soft, nebulous aggression, in the age of the outsized ego?
No comments:
Post a Comment