The following weaves several story lines together, beginning with one of narrow obscurity, extending into a briefly celebrated case, and concluding with a seemingly unrelated larger point. Or is it?
Maureen Dowd wrote a lovely eulogy to a Washington columnist I never heard of. She can be quite serious when she wants to be. It was his honesty which fed his essential goodness, she asserted. Which she proceeded to compare to the dishonesty of the latest novelist caught in a fraud.
This one is of particular note because it involves Oprah Winfrey, a woman so famous,successful, beloved that she influences millions to commit to causes, to books.
Oprah, decidedly not a politician, could run for office and win election. But Oprah has been caught in a deception which quickly became a rushed calculation whether to continue to aid and abet or denounce and suffer the temporary embarrassment and damaged credibility. The writer in question appeared on a veteran cable program to exonerate himself from accusations of embellishment of his alleged autobiography. It is a forum known for the rehabilitation – or attempts at it – of disgraced lawyers, politicians, celebrities – no obscure person qualifies – in the remaining seconds of which Ms. Winfrey called in, on the line reserved for friends of the host. At this late moment, having consulted with her private attorney, she decided to support the one who betrayed her, to bluff her way through the crisis until it blew over into the next immaterial scandal.Because she called at the very last minute, the host allowed her extra time, several minutes of which leaked into what should have been the opening minutes of the following program. Of course, Oprah, being Oprah, a hostess herself, neither acknowledged that fact nor respected the fact that another caller of the ordinary variety never would have been granted a word of commentary while the host and the world might have been deprived of, as far as we know, as insightful a speech as Oprah’s was self-serving. To make matters worse, when the host threw the mike to the following host the new host declared that he was only too happy to have conceded those minutes to the likes of Oprah and her inspiring wisdom, as the audience collectively wondered how much more dazzling would have been the physical presence of Ms. Winfrey on the program.
That’s how it is and that’s elitism. It isn’t about intellect and it certainly isn’t about political persuasion. It’s about pure superiority and money and fame and circumvention of the natural laws which ensnare the rest of us. And it doesn’t matter whether one has earned such status or inherited it the old-fashioned way, having been born into the right family under the right circumstances at the right time.
What’s great about our country, or should the question be, what facilitated its becoming the richest and most powerful in the history of the world. Freedom, some will respond, tentatively, or in the alternative, democracy. No, not the byproduct, the underlying conditions. A sparsely populated continent with rich farmland set the stage for a relative handful to sustain the majority, that is, to provide the foundation for the rest to engage in creative frivolity that has become the envy of nations who resent us simultaneously. A new land in which to experiment with such notions as drawing the line where your freedom intrudes on my security and distinguishing between religion and morality, if such a distinction can be made. Where obvious truth is trumped by fair process and theoretically all are the same. They’re not, of course, which isn’t the fault of the law, nor the intentions of those who envisioned the system. It is human nature to strive to be above or to confine oneself to never achieving beyond sustenance, to assign oneself, with triumph or resignation, to one’s place in life, and the accompanying glory or defeat.
“Do unto others” need not apply. In fact, it is anathema to a culture obsessed with everything insignificant, deceitful, and transitory. If it is true that one can only, and ultimately, work in service of oneself, through others, perhaps, not only to further their happiness but to maintain one’s desired self-image, then society prospers only so long as the welfare of one comes not at the expense of the other. A crowded parking lot with two remaining spaces affords comfort to the drivers of the two cars entering it at the same time. Were it one more the energy flows into the effort of resolving the conflict without sacrificing the common good. Unfortunately, this scenario too rarely plays out. Often enough is not quite enough.