Character Flaws of the Rich and Powerful

In an odd column about The Social Network, simultaneously emphasizing that it is a fictionalized account of Mark Zuckerberg's rise and treating it as if it's fact, David Brooks laments,

The Zuckerberg character is without social and moral skills. It’s not that he’s a bad person. He’s just never been house-trained. He’s been raised in a culture reticent to talk about social and moral conduct. The character becomes a global business star without getting a first-grade education in interaction.

and concludes,

Many critics have compared this picture to “Citizen Kane.” But I was reminded of the famous last scene in “The Searchers,” in which the John Wayne character is unable to join the social bliss he has created. The character gaps that propel some people to do something remarkable can’t be overcome simply because they have managed to change the world.

It seems worth noting that the psychological factors that Brooks ascribes to not being "house trained" as a result of being "raised in a culture reticent to talk about social and moral conduct" should evoke in his mind something a bit more contemporary than a John Wayne movie. It's interesting that he rejects, without any real analysis, the comparison to Citizen Kane, a fictionalized account of William Randolph Hearst. Who was more ruthless, "Caine" or Zuckerman as depicted in the movie? Who was more vengeful, less moral, more selfish? Were "Caine's" character flaws a manifestation of his being "raised in a culture reticent to talk about social and moral conduct"?

The fact is, darn few people claw their way to the top of the economic pyramid while playing the part of the socially conscious gentleman. The novelty in the rise of somebody like (movie) Zuckerberg is not so much that he's ruthless with his friends and enemies alike, but that (as Brooks points out) he's a "nerd" - somebody who wouldn't have been able to penetrate the class system that Brooks assures us no longer exists at Harvard. Yes, the information age has allowed a huge number of "nerds", including many with weak social skills", to become wealthy and lead companies. Historically many of those same people would have been stuck working for somebody else. But let's not pretend that the history of capitalism stands as a monument to moral, ethical, well-socialized businessmen.

I sometimes come across platitudinous assertions about the wealthy and powerful, such as "Great men have great appetites" or "Great men have great faults." The fact is, every human being has faults, and most of us have pretty significant faults. Appetites? The same thing - I doubt that there's a person on the planet who hasn't, at some point in time, wanted or felt driven to do something that was wrong or immoral - but when you're wealthy you can either find "legal" ways to exercise your desires, or use your wealth to insulate yourself from consequence. Think of Rupert Murdoch and the way he looted his companies for personal gain - he is indignant at his prosecution because, in effect, he "stole the money, fair and square". He and his lawyers found a way to loot the companies that they believed to be legal. Take a look at Elliot Spitzer and his prostitutes, or Tiger Woods and his affairs. Their wealth brought them opportunities (or is it temptations) that most people don't get, and they made choices based upon their own character. On one level, most certainly, it's easier to avoid crossing a moral line if you don't face temptation. But on another level there's nothing special about them that compelled them to surrender to temptation. It's still a matter of personal choice - what type of person do you want to be?

I think you will find that, among people who manage to climb to the top of the economic pyramid, there's a tendency to put concerns about others - their wishes, feelings, needs, whatever - to the background. There is often a single-mindedness to their push to the top. In some cases that's highly contextual, with the driven individual simply not allowing others to stand between him and his goal. With others it branches out into all areas of his life. That has a lot less to do with being "raised in a culture reticent to talk about social and moral conduct" and a lot more to do with their childhood experiences and their personality. How many generations of wealthy people would have told you that their station was a manifestation of the will of God, and would happily explain why their actions were morally proper if not dictated by their faith?

I don't want to sound like Brooks, and oversimplify the wealthy into two classes of individual. But I do think it's fair to observe that the tendency to run roughshod over others within the context of business does roughly break down into two varieties: those who simply don't care, and those who recognize what they are doing and seek forgiveness after-the-fact - adherents to the principle that it's easier to get forgiveness than to get permission. (If you succeed, odds are you'll get that permission. And if you successes significantly outweigh your failures, you'll probably still get forgiven.) Forging ahead when others around you are urging caution can be reasonably described as leadership. But, as one would hope that movie Zuckerman learned by the end of the screenplay, you don't have to be an ass to be a leader.

Brooks on Spitzer

Without "naming names," David Brooks has written what is obviously intended as an armchair psychoanalysis of Elliot Spitzer. I wonder, though, if it isn't more of an introspective essay - where Brooks might find himself but for his preternatural ability to resist marshmallows.

They go through the oboe practice, soccer camp, homework marathon childhood. Their parent-teacher conferences are like mini-Hall of Fame enshrinements as all gather to worship at the flame of their incipient success. In high school, they enter their Alpha Geekdom. They rack up great grades and develop that coating of arrogance that forms on those who know that in the long run they will be more successful than the beauties and jocks who get dates.

Then they go into one of those fields like law, medicine or politics, where a person’s identity is defined by career rank. They develop the specific social skills that are useful on the climb up the greasy pole: the capacity to imply false intimacy; the ability to remember first names; the subtle skills of effective deference; the willingness to stand too close to other men while talking and touching them in a manly way.

Is it just me, or did that get a bit weird toward the end....

Oh, I suppose Brooks paints one path to narcissism. (Mike at Crime and Federalism seems more inclined to see this as sociopathy.) The high school geek, certain of his own superiority, reinforced by family members (but not by peers), who gains a position that vest him with money and power. But at the end of the day, it's the destination that matters. Some of the more common manifestations of personality disorder:

Narcissistic personality disorder

• Inflated sense of - and preoccupation with - your importance, achievements and talents


• Constant attention-grabbing and admiration-seeking behavior


• Inability to empathize with others


• Excessive anger or shame in response to criticism


• Manipulation of others to further your own desires

Brooks himself knows that the narcissistic geek is the exception, not the rule, in positions of leadership. How did he put it?

The only real shift between school and adult politics is that the jocks realize they need conservative intellectuals, who are geeks who have decided their fellow intellectuals should never be allowed to run anything and have learned to speak slowly so the jocks will understand them. Meanwhile, the geeks have learned they need to find popular kids like F.D.R. to head their tickets because the American people will never send a former geek to the White House.

Also, if history tells us anything it's that there is no single personality type that is inclined toward a Spitzer-type fall from grace. The "jocks, cheerleaders and preps" are more likely to get a position of fame and/or fortune from which to fall, but maybe that makes no difference to Brooks, who states that in high school:

... all prestige goes to jocks, cheerleaders and preps who possess the emotional depth of a cocker spaniel.

Does Brooks see anybody as having emotional depth? Other than possibly himself?

I'm left with the question, why does Brooks focus on lust, and not the other deadly sins? Does he believe that a hyperachieving nerd is more susceptible to this type of scandal? That Gary Hart and Bill Clinton were unpopular nerds in high school? (What about JFK and Lyndon Johnson?) That Charlie Sheen, Eddie Murphy and Hugh Grant are nerds at heart, involved in prostitution scandals due to their "rank-link imbalances"? Or is it that he's trying to find a way to wag his finger at Spitzer without acknowledging the fallen heroes of the right - Newt Gingrich, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Larry Craig, Tom Delay, George Allen, Bernie Kerik, etc., likely to soon be joined by Don Young and Ted Stevens? Because when you broaden the context and include the more typical cases, you can really see how Brooks missed the mark.