I have to give it to the Discovery Channel: even when it ticks me off, it makes me think. I watched the first installment of "The Greatest American" last night, and I was appalled to see some of people included.
Actually, I should be mad not at the Discovery Channel, but at the bozos who voted some of the selectees onto the list.
In justifying my own ideas about who should not be on the list, however, I had to contemplate the nature of greatness itself. For too many people who voted, greatness seems to have more to do with being recently in the headlines or representative of some political point one wants to make--or of just being someone's favorite--than it has to do with real character or impact on the country as a whole.
It certainly is not the same as Time magazine's criterion for its Person of the Year. Time's editors require themselves to choose the person who, for good or for ill, has had the most impact on the world in the past year. Thus was Hitler selected, in 1937 I think.
Greatness is different. It necessarily implies a positive impact; the great American has done something to benefit the country and beyond that, the world, in a measurable and remarkable way.
Madonna, Michael Jackson, Brett Favre, Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Moore, among others, have all had massive effects on American society and culture . . . but those effects are not necessarily positive. They were all voted onto the Discovery Channel's list . . . none of them should have been.
Richard M. Nixon is quintessential. He'd have been an ideal Time Man of the Year, and he did do some important things, such as opening China and signing the Clean Air and Water Acts. But Watergate is his legacy. His total disregard for the true nature of our system of government and his utter disrespect for the US Constitution render him unfit to be considered a Great American.
Personal courage, dignity, and decency are all examples of American greatness in action, but I doubt anyone displaying these traits should be on the list just for showing grace under pressure. Lance Armstrong, for instance, is a man with a ton of grit, drive, competitiveness, and determination, not to mention skill and stamina . . . but is conquering his own case of cancer while winning 6 straight Tours de France enough to make him a candidate for Greatest American? I think not. His story is inspiring, but what has it done for America?
An aside: one person not on the list was Ernest Hemmingway. I am no fan of Hemmingway's work, but in my more raffish moments, I think he deserves to be on the list just because he inspired whomever first wrote: "Why did the chicken cross the road? To die. In the rain. Alone."
But that's just my sense of humor talking.
The other major question regarding the list is ranking. I find it very easy to name my own top two, and to name enough others to make for a sound list, but after the top two, ranking the others becomes impossible for me. Who can say, with comfort and certainty, that Edison belongs higher on the list than the Wright Brothers? Not I.
My top two are (1) Abraham Lincoln, and (2) Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. They both had stirring visions of what America could be, and they eloquently dragged the rest of the country along. Both were cut down for their efforts . . . and while martyrdom alone does not indicate greatness, it can indicate (by the way the country responds to an assassination) how deeply a person affected the country.
For that reason, I have no quarrel with either JFK or RFK also being on the list. And the eloquence thing means I have no quarrel with Mark Twain being on the list. The vision thing also justifies FDR's and Eleanor Roosevelt's both being on the list . . . and, I would argue, for adding Gene Roddenberry to the list (though at a lower ranking). He gave the nation a vision of a hopeful, decent, integrated, positive future in the original Star Trek that the country sorely needed at the time . . . and still does.
Thomas Edison clearly belongs on the list, just because I wouldn't be sitting here, doing this, if not for what others were able to build from his creations.
And Bill Gates does belong on the list, but more for what he has done with the ridiculous amounts of money he's made than how he made it. His and his wife's charitable foundation truly has bettered not just the country, but the world.
Ditto for Oprah Winfrey, who carries the additional cachet of being a superb role model for anyone.
Ditto for George Washington, who set the standard for the American Presidency: he would not become a king; nor would he serve more than two terms. Giving up power voluntarily is truly greatness in action.
But Martha Stewart? No way. Nor Henry Ford. No matter the effect their business empires have had on the country; they have personal shortcomings that disqualify them both. Likewise Charles Lindbergh.
Because to be a truly great American is not just to positively affect the course of America . . . it also has to do with personal decency. And for that reason, I can argue against JFK, Bill Clinton, and slave-holding Thomas Jefferson from being at the top of the list, even if I cannot keep them off it entirely.
Dubya? Not in a million years should he, his father, his mother, his wife, or anyone in his family be anywhere near the list, let alone on it. Why? If for no other reason, then try this: it is rightly said of the Bush family that its members are gracious--when they get their own way.
True greatness has a component requiring someone to be gracious especially when NOT getting his own way.
The Bushes seem to regard the country as their personal fiefdom and birthright, something they own, not something they serve. That's just wrong. And it should keep every last one of them off the list.
The Discovery Channel has fixed numbers 100-26. If you want to vote for the greatest amongst its top 25, go to www.aol.com/greatestamerican for details. You can also make a toll free call to 1-866-669-3117 to vote for Abraham Lincoln as the single greatest American.
Hey, I never claimed to be impartial!
No comments:
Post a Comment