Tuesday, March 6, 2012


The Rediscovery of Character

The obituaries for James Q. Wilson, the eminent social scientist, generally emphasized his “broken windows” theory on how to reduce crime. That’s natural. This strategy, which contributed to the recent reduction in crime rates, was his most tangible legacy.
But broken windows was only a small piece of what Wilson contributed, and he did not consider it the center of his work. The best way to understand the core Wilson is by borrowing the title of one of his essays: “The Rediscovery of Character.”
When Wilson began looking at social policy, at the University of Redlands, the University of Chicago and Harvard, most people did not pay much attention to character. The Marxists looked at material forces. Darwinians at the time treated people as isolated products of competition. Policy makers of right and left thought about how to rearrange economic incentives. “It is as if it were a mark of sophistication for us to shun the language of morality in discussing the problems of mankind,” he once recalled.
Wilson worked within this tradition. But during the 1960s and ’70s, he noticed that the nation’s problems could not be understood by looking at incentives. Schools were expanding, but James Coleman found that the key to education success was the relationships at home and in the neighborhood. Income transfers to the poor increased, but poor neighborhoods did not improve; instead families disintegrated.
The economy boomed and factory jobs opened up, but crime rates skyrocketed. Every generation has an incentive to spend on itself, but none ran up huge deficits until the current one. Some sort of moral norms prevented them.
“At root,” Wilson wrote in 1985 in The Public Interest, “in almost every area of important concern, we are seeking to induce persons to act virtuously, whether as schoolchildren, applicants for public assistance, would-be lawbreakers or voters and public officials.”
When Wilson wrote about character and virtue, he didn’t mean anything high flown or theocratic. It was just the basics, befitting a man who grew up in the middle-class suburbs of Los Angeles in the 1940s: Behave in a balanced way. Think about the long-term consequences of your actions. Cooperate. Be decent.
He did not believe that virtue was inculcated by prayer in schools. It was habituated by practicing good manners, by being dependable, punctual and responsible day by day.
Wilson lived in an individualistic age, but he emphasized that character was formed in groups. As he wrote in “The Moral Sense,” his 1993 masterpiece, “Order exists because a system of beliefs and sentiments held by members of a society sets limits to what those members can do.”
Wilson set out to learn how groups created a good order, why that order sometimes frayed. He worked patiently and meticulously. The phrase “we don’t know” rings throughout his writing. He was quick to admit ignorance in the face of knotty social problems.
When Wilson started talking about character, he was surprised that many in the academy regarded him as an archconservative. Why should character talk be conservative? But he accepted the label and responded gracefully. Some conservatives in the academy respond to their isolation by becoming combative and extreme. Wilson’s rule was that conservatives should respond by being twice as productive and four times as nice.
In “The Moral Sense,” he brilliantly investigated the virtuous sentiments we are born with and how they are cultivated by habit. Wilson’s broken windows theory was promoted in an essay with George Kelling called “Character and Community.” Wilson and Kelling didn’t think of crime primarily as an individual choice. They saw it as something that emerged from the social psychology of a community. When neighborhoods feel disorganized and scary, crime increases.
Over the years, Wilson argued that American communities responded to the stresses of industrialization by fortifying self-control. Thanks to the temperance movement, for example, adult per-capita alcohol consumption fell from 7.1 gallons a year to 1.8 gallons a year between 1830 and 1850.
But America responded to the stresses of the information economy by reducing the communal buttresses to self-control, with unfortunate results. Occasionally, when there was sufficient evidence, Wilson recommended policies that might reverse this slide. In one 1998 Public Interest essay, he promoted ideas to strengthen the family: create publicly supported, privately operated group homes for teenage mothers; increase adoption; investigate ways to increase preschool programs; create a G.I. Bill for young mothers — if you take care of your kid now, the government will pay for training later; create a religious United Way fund to increase the role of religion in American society.
Wilson was not a philosopher. He was a social scientist. He just understood that people are moral judgers and moral actors, and he reintegrated the vocabulary of character into discussions of everyday life.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Billy Cundiff and The Art of Manning Up

The Good men project

The other night, more than 25 million people watched the NFL AFC championship game end in infamy as the New England Patriots narrowly defeated the Baltimore Ravens.

Did the game end with a triumph of sporting brilliance? A testament to human willpower? A staggering display of athletic prowess?

No. Sadly, it was mostly decided because one guy made a lousy kick.

It was the kind of kick we’ve all screwed up much more badly at some point. In recess. In 3rd grade. But this kick was screwed up by a guy whose sole job, unfortunately, it is to make great kicks in clutch situations. And despite the relatively easy field goal length of 32 yards, he just plum missed it. And instead of tying the game up, his team lost, and they missed out on going to the Super Bowl.

This man is Billy Cundiff.

And he’s probably got a tough few months ahead of him. Maybe longer.

And it must be said, I’m a Patriots fan. I grew up in New England, and after not seeing much success out of them in my youth, I’m ecstatic that this will be their 5th time in the Super Bowl in 11 years.

But I didn’t want to see them win like that. Neither did most Pats fans. Hell, I swear I could even see some Pats players wincing in empathy themselves for the man who arguably cost his team a chance at a ring.
And yes, surely the Ravens and their fans didn’t want to see it end that way, either.


But most of all, Billy Cundiff probably sure would have preferred a different ending, too.

♦◊♦

There’s no shortage of stories in NFL history about kickers failing to make the clutch kick. It’s the stuff of folklore, even spoofed in movies like Ace Ventura. The kind of “whoops” you hope never happens to you. The kind that perhaps Buffalo Bills kicker Scott Norwood knows all too well. The kind that most of us commit at least once a week. But when there aren’t 25 million people watching.

The phrase “manning up” usually refers to facing a challenge in life, being bold, not backing down from a fight.
But there’s another kind of “manning up” entirely: the subtle art of recovering from a mistake, accepting responsibility and rebuilding oneself to try again.

We saw the beginnings of that kind of “manning up” in Billy’s post-game conference, as he acknowledged his blunder with calm humility. “I think we can keep things simple: It’s a kick I’ve made a thousand times in my career. I just went out there and didn’t convert. There’s really no excuse for it.”

He knew it was a horrible lapse in skill, and he owned it. The coaches and other team members like Ray Lewis all said the things that should be said, the things that are actually even true, that no one person can lose a game. That the real reason is that the whole team didn’t do enough. That you could point to other moments where someone else screwed up, but it simply didn’t happen in the final 10 seconds of the game.

But Billy knows most of the world won’t see it that way. A lot of people will blame him. Even if they shouldn’t. The competition might trash-talk him about it for years. Hell, he might trash talk himself about it for years.

♦◊♦

As someone who was a competitive ski racer for 10 years, I could relate. I know all about the sting of a momentary lapse in concentration. You can train all season long, for years on end, developing your strength and power, honing your reflexes, refining your technique, tuning your gear, and even put yourself in a first place after the first run. But in the second run, if you start thinking of victory too soon and hook a tip on the third gate from the finish and crash out? None of it matters at all. Some other guy wins and you go home with nothing.

You’ll think about it all season long, how you could have possibly let such a moment slip away. It takes a well-balanced mind to keep those demons at bay, to not beat yourself up, to forgive yourself. Because it’s easy to be a paragon of virtue when everything’s going your way. The true test of a man is when he finds himself face down in the mud.

Billy’s still got a good chunk of his career ahead of him. And it doesn’t have to end this way. This doesn’t have to be the moment he’s remembered for.

So while he’s clearly got a lot of experience “manning up” in the traditional sense in his life (he was voted a Pro Bowl kicker just last year), this one might be his biggest test yet of the other kind.

And based on his most recent post-game comments, I’d say it’s one I say he’s gonna pass. “It’s something that is going to be tough for a while,” he said. “But I’ve got two kids and there are some lessons I need to teach them. First and foremost is to stand up and face the music and move on.”

There are a lot of things a man could be concerned with after failing to deliver the goods in such a crucial moment: his team, his team’s fans, his PR image, perhaps his future contract negotiations. But instead, what’s on his mind most?

His kids. And that he’s got a responsibility to use this as a teaching moment for them, to show them how to get up off the ground and try again.

I can’t wait to see how those kids turn out, Billy. I’ll be rooting for you.

(Just as long as you’re not playing against the Pats.)