Do public leaders with moral critiques of their communities have an obligation to live moral lives themselves? The answer seems obvious to me now: yes! But in my younger days, I often found myself advocating for family values in public while violating those values in private. In this clip from my latest Substack subscriber-only Q&A session with John McWhorter, a reader asks how I handled this contradiction between my words and my deeds.
And for audiobook fans, the wait is over. Late Admissions: Confessions of a Black Conservative is now available in audiobook format, and it’s read by yours truly. Follow the links below to purchase, or get it wherever you get your audiobooks.
This clip is taken from a subscriber-only Q&A session. For access to Q&As, comments, early episodes, and a host of other benefits, click below and subscribe.
Glenn, I finished your memoir a few days ago and I have to say that it's definitely one of my favorite books in recent years. It makes me wonder what Thomas Sowell's memoir would've revealed had he taken the same candid approach to detailing his life that you did in your book.
Like John, I'm also not particularly worked up over the details of your personal escapades. You referenced a quote by your Uncle Adelert regarding the purpose of life. Rather than being a crude expression of masculine bravado, I would contend that your Uncle Adelert actually expressed a profound truth. I recall the late Daniel Dennett making the argument in Darwin's Dangerous Idea that the imperative of our genes was the summum bonum of biological existence, the highest good so to speak. Vernacular wisdom derived from real life African American experience should be held in the same regard as fancy sounding Latin written by a white Anglo-American scholar. Both strike me as equally getting to the heart of the matter.
In my opinion, no reasonable person can fault a man for being amorous of the ladies. The esteemed Bertrand Russell married multiple times and was known for being a notorious womanizer. Russell's legacy is that of one of the great philosophers of the Anglo Analytic tradition. Apart from a handful of overly prudish moral types, does anyone seriously discount the value of his intellectual contributions in light of his personal proclivities? I find the idea hard to fathom given the stature of Russell's genius.
Likewise, Albert Einstein was another notorious womanizer and supposedly indulged in the services of prostitutes. Clearly Einstein was interested in more than just unlocking the deepest secrets of the universe. I'm reminded of an anecdote about the late Richard Feynman frequenting a Pasadena strip club while solving physics equations. By the way, Feynman also experimented with LSD. If many of the most profoundly influential scientific figures in human history have engaged in the kind of behavior that we're moralizing against for the masses, what does that say about whether or not we've accurately diagnosed the problem? Perhaps that's the real hypocrisy. If the result of being a Player is general and special relativity, the photoelectric effect and quantum chromodynamics, then I say maybe we need more Players.
There very well may be a certain level of hypocrisy inherent in advocating for values which one doesn't live up to personally. As I alluded to above though, that merely begs the question of whether or not the entire premise is overblown to begin with. As you yourself pointed out Glenn in a prior conversation with Ian Rowe regarding the importance of marriage, the fact that rates of marriage are correlated with positive life outcomes may not in fact reflect causation. It's very possible that some deeper underlying traits make individuals both more likely to marry and to engage in the sort of positive behaviors and life outcomes that one reflexively attributes to the institution of marriage. As the old statistical adage goes, correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation.
There are of course other dimensions to morality and I certainly wouldn't argue the above for someone with a penchant for criminal behavior. In my opinion though, when it comes to matters of sex I think society would be better off shedding some of its Puritanical values. The Game has existed since time immemorial and all the Players throughout history such as Martin Luther King Jr, Uncle Adelert, Glenn Cartman Loury, Bertand Russell, Donald Trump, Albert Einstein and countless others only have my undying respect. As another bit of age-old American wisdom goes, don't hate the Player, hate the Game.
Character is an essential part of leadership. Anybody who wants to effectively and sustainably lead a group has to have it. This is especially true if you're asking people to take on a difficult task.
Consider this quote from Bill Russell's book, "11 Lessons on Leadership From the Twentieth Century's Greatest Winner:" "Trust the teller and you'll trust the tale." This is the opening line from "Lesson Seven - Personal Integrity"
Or consider that the first chapter in John Maxwell's book, "The 21 Indispensable Qualities of a Leader" is focused on character. Here are some of the points he made:
1. Character is more than talk
2. Talent is a gift, but character is a choice
3. Character brings lasting success with people
4. Leaders cannot rise above the limitations of their character
Or consider this quote from "The Complete Art of War, Sun Tzu-Sun Pin" as translated by Ralph Sawyer:
"The general must be righteous.
If he is not righteous, then he will not be severe.
If he is not severe, then he will not be awesome.
If he is not awesome, the troops will not die for him.
Thus righteousness is the head of the army."
I could go on, but I hope you get the idea. People won't make sacrifices and follow leaders down difficult paths if they don't believe in them. The often shocking lack of character displayed by the leaders of many of America's institutions is the primary reason why faith in America's institutions is at historically low levels according to Gallup:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/508169/historically-low-faith-institutions-continues.aspx