The Road to Character, by David Brooks (Hardcover, 2015)|
(You can print this review in landscape mode, if you
want a hardcopy)
Reviewer: Mark Lamendola, author of over 6,000 articles.
I reviewed an advance copy. It was an uncorrected proof, but even at that
stage it had fewer copy errors than most finished books do. So mechanically, the
team did a good job on this book.
I don't follow any of the venues in which Mr. Brooks appears or is
published, so this was my first exposure to him and to his thoughts.
Noticeable in this book is most of the text doesn't reflect his thoughts.
Most of it is story-telling, and I had a hard time seeing where each story
was going in relation to the theme of the book. I had difficulty trying to
get what point or points he was trying to make, because he seemed to digress
as he told each story.
Perhaps I did get what I presume to be his core point. If I understand
him correctly, Brooks asserts there are two sides to us. There's Adam I
(self-centered and self-aggrandizing) and there's Adam 2 (others-centered
and self-effacing). Each story presumably illustrates one of these or both.
In my own discussion style, I will often start off with a good example
but then go on too long about that example, expanding it into its own story
and diverting the entire discussion from the original point. A very good
friend of mine, in exasperation, pointed this out to me (not for the first
time) while I was reading this book. While such a story may be interesting
in its own right, it can (and often does) derail the conversation by causing
it to lose focus. The effect in a verbal conversation can be rather annoying
t those whose communication style isn't story-based.
Brooks did not convince me that the road character is the same as the
road to the Adam II modality. When you hear the phrase, "He's a man of
character" or "I admire her for her high degree of character," what comes to
mind? Can self-centered people possess character? When Martin Luther King
said he dreamed of the day we would judge men not by the color of their
skin, but by their character, what did he mean?
If you scour the definitions presented in various dictionaries, you find
it has to do with moral excellence and consistency of holding to moral
values. So things such as your honesty in dealing with other people, your
willingness to endure personal sacrifice rather than sacrifice your moral
ideals, and being a "solid citizen" come to mind. Do they not?
Brooks seems to be talking about something else. I'm not sure what it is,
though. In some cases, I began to think he was proselytizing in a religious
sense; he seemed to put a great deal of emphasis on religion. But morals
don't derive from religion (though most religions do prescribe a moral
code). The most immoral acts have been done in the name of religion, and
continue to be done in the name of religion today. Many agnostics and
atheists have outstanding character and very high morals. Many, admittedly,
do not. Religiosity and moral fiber (or character) are two separate issues.
Brooks doesn't see them as such.
A point he makes both implicitly and explicitly is that prior to the end
of World War II, Americans were, both individually and collectively,
exemplars of culture characterized by others-centered and self-effacing
(Adam II). But after the end of hostilities, Americans (according to Brooks)
sank into a spoiled brat, self-centered, self-aggrandizing, me-me-me culture
both individually and collectively. Members of the Greatest Generation were
humble and effective, subsequent generations missed the mark by miles.
But I don't find this point properly supported in his book. Nor do I find
it supported in other literature or in my own observations. Any time you
extrapolate from specific examples to the general, you're on dangerous
ground. Each of his stories was a specific example. The extrapolations are
non-sequitors. He didn't present meta data to support his claims, nor did he
present a solid theory to support them (he did present a theory, but it's a
He seems to be saying that Americans had character before the end of WWII
and haven't had it since. He did highlight a difference in personal
confidence that is probably true. After all, we won the war. Our economic
competitors bombed each others' factories and infrastructure, while ours
remained intact. This put FDR's Depression (brought on by excessive debt,
something exacerbated ever since) on temporary hold, giving us an economic
boom while they rebuilt. By the late 1950s, this reprieve ended; American
employers were laying off workers in 1958. But what does this have to do
Humility is a virtue. But it's not a moral issue. Many people of high
moral standards are not very humble about it. Some people have character in
spades, and take great pride in that. Have you not encountered a judgmental
person who strictly follows society's moral rules? They are everywhere, so
of course you have. And what about self-important people who get things done
in the name of moral virtue? Leaders are rarely humble people. Dynamic
leaders never are. They are good, and they know it. That's one reason we
follow them. Western civilization texts don't celebrate Alexander the
Humble, they celebrate Alexander the Great.
An acid test of Brooks' theory might be this. If Americans began lacking
character after World War II because they sank into the Adam I condition,
how did so many people have the moral fortitude to face attack dogs and fire
hoses in Selma, Alabama? How did they have the steadfastness of character to
hold so firmly to the nonresistance credo that they didn't fight back even
when attacked with clubs? Think, and you can easily come up with many other
examples of character since 1945.
OK, so you probably "get it" that I think Brooks spent too much space
storytelling and not enough making his point or expressing his own thoughts
on character. As I read this, the meandering gave me the impression there
were multiple authors and too many cooks in the kitchen. So I wasn't
surprised at his comments in the acknowledgements. That's exactly what
So is the book even worth reading?
Yes, it is. The book does make food for thought. However, it's really a
collection of separate ideas (and stories) rather than a treatise on
character. The stories, which mostly struck me as irrelevant, are
interesting in their own right. The various ideas unrelated to character are
also interesting, and are worth exploring separately. Just don't expect it
to show you the road to character, because it doesn't.