“History Will be the Judge” — It’s Not the Most Compelling of Threats.
History as the judge is one of the most tepid threats imaginable, yet I see it touted continually.
When the most damning threat that can be made towards an individual who’s running low on the integrity stakes is that history will judge them, we’ve entered a phase of hopelessness.
When this Declaration is the best we’ve got, what does it Tell us?
- Justice is selective and too many of the world’s leaders are avoiding it despite unequivocal wrongdoing.
- There’s no faith in the system. We exist exclusively in the first half of the wheels of justice metaphor; the grind extremely fine conclusion but sand through the hourglass.
I’m not Sure that Anyone this Comment is Directed to is too Concerned About History.
According to this Gallup Poll titled Americans Expect History to Judge Trump Harshly, Richard Nixon, was the least ranked of the nine presidents listed, with a net positive score of -48. The article namesake at -32.
Nixon died 20 years after being removed from the office of the Presidency. In 1994 he received a state funeral which was “attended by world dignitaries from 85 countries and all five living presidents of the United States, the first time that five U.S. presidents attended the funeral of another president.”
Without trying to take too firm a position on it, I don’t get the sense that history has been particularly cruel to the former President. He’s not an effective illustration of the concept in action.
Do you think any of the people you can name from the Republican House of Representatives, with their conspiracies, lies and straight up propaganda are hand wringing lest an unfavourable history hex be placed upon them?
In Order for a Legacy of Shame to be a Threat, you First Need to be Able to Feel Shame.
We’re talking headlines without the nuance of a story at this point, but it’s a simple position of alignment to commence with — for the threat of ill repute to bear any sort of burden, you need to be able to feel shame.
Shame plays a role in regulation of behaviour. In the absence of shame, there’s little motivation towards behavioural regulation.
Text messages within court filings for the Dominion Voting Machines defamation suit against Fox News revealed that host Tucker Carlson wrote of The Former Guy “I hate him passionately.” But that exists outside the Fox echo chamber. It’s not like the embarrassment of this display of hypocrisy and deceit was compelling enough to address on the network.
The Dominion lawsuit filings revealed a host of contrasting opinions between what TV network presenters had to say on air versus what they expressed behind the scenes. In the cult of personality, which a number of the Fox presenters are avatars for, there’s no reasonable discernment between onscreen and offscreen personas.
America Loves Some Sorry, Not Sorry.
While it may stem more from the thrill of the fallen rising again to glory, the Academy Award winning theatrics of US leaders who’ve misstepped, are myriad and storied.
A piece like this would be nothing without recalling some of the hits of the Sorry, Not Sorry Top 100. Marquee acts such as disgraced Televangelist, Jim Bakker, and cyclist Lance Armstrong have been far from shunned out of existence. They sort of said what needed to be said. On Oprah, or through another highly parsed PR communique.
Bakker remains self righteous, anointed with the divination to declare that christians who fail to back Trump aren’t saved. But it’s clear he was authentic; so much so that he was sued for selling a fake Covid19 cure. Armstrong has a podcast and continues to move in cycling related circles. His status warrants speculation of net worth. That doesn’t happen for regular folks.
But It’s OK, we no Longer Expect People to be Sorry.
The difference between Baker, Armstrong and a holiday in Cancun while your state is in a black out is that the first pair were arguably shamed into an apology. It’s not required of gaslighting elected officials it seems. Those who promote absurd and despicable lies for sympathetic media networks to sound-byte. The PR curated productions at least considered remorse as part of the script.
The Seeds of He Who is Without Shame are Myriad.
In an effort to avoid any faux medical posturing, topline reasons culled from a casual internet search for Why don’t people feel shame? provides an array of responses that are best encapsulated as mental health related conditions.
- Psychopathy
- Narcissism
- A generalised lack of empathy
- Trauma, neglect
- Drug and alcohol abuse
Any condition where emotional arousal has been reduced may bear the hallmarks of this lack of shame.
You Didn’t Mention Greed.
Greed may not be the most prevalent characteristic of the shameless ones, but it’s the most appropriate for those who most regularly anointed with the History will be the judge comment.
We’ve all known greedy people. Whether it’s money, fame or power (one arguably metaphoric for the other), the desire to advance, even at the expense of others, becomes the principal driver.
The Ability to Feel Shame is not Necessarily the Antidote.
A proneness to shame can amplify psychological challenges in individuals. A piece in Scientific American suggests a correlation between heightened experiences of shame and depression and anxiety. I don’t think that then suggests that a capacity to be shamed is strictly negative; only that it’s more complex.
Will History be the Judge?
Jon Ronson compiled an incredible work titled So you’ve been publicly shamed which details some fairly nuanced accounts of people who’ve been shamed into some form of oblivion. Without attempting to diminish the experiences of any of these individuals — the offence and their subsequent shot at redemption, aren’t quite as significant as contributing to the death of thousands of people through self serving Covid19 mismanagement. Their salvation in whatever form it comes in, will play out within their lifetimes.
For those who are levelled with declarations of history being the antidote to their misdeeds, it’s a hollow threat that addresses a legacy they won’t be alive to experience.
In order for the idea of taking a place in history and for that history to paint the individual as significant, they need to act from a place of authenticity and integrity. Referring back to the Gallup Poll referenced earlier Americans Expect History to Judge Trump Harshly the list is thin as it relates to Presidents who you’d cite those characteristics as primary motivators.
I want to say that we get the leaders we accept, but it’s so much more complex than that. We have to believe that given the chance, there are more people in favour of virtue than there are for gain. Maybe if virtue and integrity promoted clicks at the same rate as treachery and the promotion of misery, we’d get a more positive signal.
In the absence, it makes sense that history as the judge is the only option we have.