It’s easy to blindside someone and lay them out; it’s a lot harder to stand up in a locker room of 52 teammates and say it’s wrong to try and intentionally hurt an opponent.
Okay, I guess I was . . . too subtle in the piece I wrote yesterday about Mike Rice. I just assumed that most people would start from the same baseline, namely that Rice’s behavior toward his players was completely unacceptable. A baseline, by the way, that Rice himself has subsequently acknowledged.
But I was wrong. Some people didn’t feel that way. And I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that Sean Hannity was among them.
As reported in the Atlantic, Hannity, in a segment on his show, said the following,
He’s trying to bring the best out of them, put discipline in that team, raise their game, force them to focus, push them [to] become champions and that takes intensity.
I shouldn’t be surprised by this. Sean Hannity has always espoused a faux machismo. His books sport titles like “Let Freedom Ring” and “Deliver Us From Evil.”
But patriotic bromides are easy. They are the literary equivalent (and I use the term literary equivalent loosely) of the athlete who pounds his chest after a hard foul or an illegal hit. As I’ve discussed before on The Good Men Project, physical courage is much easier than moral courage. It’s easy to blindside someone and lay them out; it’s a lot harder to stand up in a locker room of 52 teammates and say it’s wrong to try and intentionally hurt an opponent.
Real toughness, true toughness, is the ability to focus on one’s goal despite any and all distractions, including opponents looking to give you cheap shots. Committing a hard foul doesn’t make you tough. Getting up off the floor after a hard foul, walking to the line and calmly sinking both free throws makes you tough. ESPN commentator Jay Bilas expounded on this very point in a brilliant essay some years ago.
Sean Hannity is a moral coward. He’s the equivalent of the cheap shot artist. He thinks that puffing his chest on national television and talking about how he was able to take his father’s beatings with a belt and still turn out okay makes him tough. It doesn’t; it makes him deluded.
A coach who cannot discipline his own emotions cannot hope to discipline his team. The Good Men Project was created precisely for the purpose of generating a conversation about what it means to be a good man. Well, I’m going to offer part of my definition of a good man. A good man is never full of false bravado. A good man never uses violence in any form to get other people to do what he wants them to do. A good man leads by example.
To do the opposite, to lead by fear, is to be a coward. To defend that behavior is to be less than a coward. That is precisely what Sean Hannity is. Less than a coward.
Photo: AP/John Amis
Hey, Dragnet, I’m down here! lol The left and right margins of our replies reached their limits, apparently; so, I’ve responded to your latest post down here. Speaking as the father of two young women (both of whom I’m extremely proud), I would never deny the differences between boys and girls, and men and women. Being the only male in my immediate family, I’m quite aware of the differences. On the issue of women’s rights, I’m sympathetic to feminists on many issues, but certainly not all (such as abortion). I understand what you’re saying about men being celebrated for their… Read more »
Well we cannot blame each other for the sins of our fathers else where do we provide room for growth? What we could say is the fellow has had some poor role models. Perhaps now all this has come out instead of heading down the Shame and blame bullying mentality of our own we could provide solutions and better role models for him. Coward is too strong a word for what is happening here for mine. Naive to the wiser ways of the world is a more accurate interpretation at this stage. If he fails to educate and seek true… Read more »
Rice is just a bully. Hannity has all the hallmarks of a bully — if, not (and supposing one does not question the veracity of his statements – which would be a first) his father was certainly a bully. By definition, bullies lack moral courage — look at Mitt Romney who didn’t have the balls to come clean when his history of bullying came to light. Relying on, or even supporting, physical violence (or the threat there of) as a primary means of discipline is the mark of a coward.
“Physical courage is easier than moral courage”.
I find it interesting that while few men would deny the importance of pushing through physical stress, no one talks about it in the context of moral guidance. This topic is rooted in men over boys—not exactly a stellar example of physical courage, but rather a pathetic attempt to control through fear.
Not sure qualifying the comment changes the dynamic at all.
Ghandi is a more general example of someone who used Moral courage, Jesus another.
What is a softer man?
My own personal experience is a tough and violent upbringing which I turned away from to live a life without relying on physical violence …. Does this make me “soft”.
Not sure Jesus and Ghandi are the best examples—it could be argued that both of those men had to demonstrate at least some measure of physical courage. I guess what mostly bothers me is the reflexive need to marginalize physical courage vis-à-vis moral courage. It simply is not necessary to do this. Period. Both things are valuable in their time & place and both of those things are extremely difficult. “My own personal experience is a tough and violent upbringing which I turned away from to live a life without relying on physical violence …. Does this make me “soft”.”… Read more »
Physical risk is easy, it’s simple to play the tough guy. moral courage is about standing out in a crowd and telling them they are all wrong. This, then, puts you in a position of physical risk because of the tough guys who don’t like some ‘soft’ man telling them what to do
Please go up in the thread and read my response to this mindset. A little self-awareness before saying things like this will go a long way.
Just play the tough guy you say? Risking your life and limbs is just playing the tough guy? What a ridiculous thing to say. This is exactly the kind of thing that makes me suspect the person saying it is bitter about his own lack of physical courage and tries to tear down those who have it and which he is actually jealous off in order to elevate himself. The phrazing makes it come off more like the view is motivated by status competion than any thought through stance. It is also just so incredibly low to try to tear… Read more »
“I guess what mostly bothers me is the reflexive need to marginalize physical courage vis-à-vis moral courage.”
I´ve personally seen this mostly from passive aggressive men that I don`t find show much moral courage at all. I most certainly get where you were comming from with the compensation comment further up.
“I´ve personally seen this mostly from passive aggressive men that I don`t find show much moral courage at all.” This has been my experience as well. I quite agree with the term “passive-aggressive” as a substitute for “soft”. I think it’s worth noting that in our egalitarian times, a conscious effort has been made to mold the language around these issues for the benefit of women—and men short on old-fashioned male status markers like physical strength. How can we enable women to have access to traditional masculine virtues like courage—without them actually having to endure any real physical threat? The… Read more »
I don’t want to be misunderstood. I’m not going to argue that one form of courage is superior over the other. But I do have a problem with the notion that there is a single standard of masculinity and that those who don’t meet this standard are somehow inferior. Dragnet, I have always appreciated soldiers and officers of the law for defending the rest of us. Decades ago I deplored the despicable reception U.S. servicemen returning from Vietnam received from so-called anti-war demonstrators. But a society needs different types of men in order to function and survive. For example, I… Read more »
I get what you are saying and agree with most of it–but you also impute arguments to me that I did not actually make. I did not imply that “softer” men were less worthy than other men. Sure, some men are less traditionally masculine on the physical dimension. But even in highly patriarchal societies these “softer” men (ie, musicians, philosophers, men of intellect, etc) were still regarded as men, some highly so. But that isn’t unique to our so-called “egalitarian age” and this website doesn’t have a lock on encouraging varying aspects of masculinity. The patriarchy, such as it was,… Read more »
I really liked Bills comment and agreed with most of it but had some disagreements and wanted to write an answer but then Dragnet apparently wrote my post better than I could have, so I`ll just say that Dragnets comment expresses exactly what I wanted to say.
Dragnet and Eric, I’m very interested in this thread. Unfortunately, I was way too busy to get online today; and I can’t stay up late tonight. I’ve gone to the trouble to post this very brief message to let you guys know I was still interested in this exchange. I was afraid if you didn’t hear from me today that you’d think I’d lost interest or was not going to post anymore. Not so. I hope to have time to post late tomorrow afternoon after I’ve spent an hour on an elliptical machine (resistance setting of 12) at my health… Read more »
Ok thanks for the heads-up. Will bookmark this page and check back tomorrow. I find this thread interesting, too, and am happy we’ve been able to have a civil, if pointed & intense, discussion.
Heh—well played sir.
I’m not sure what you mean by “well played sir,” but that’s okay. Just my ignorance. 🙂 I must admit that I wouldn’t be able to exercise on an elliptical machine for an hour if I didn’t use my iPod to listen to music to help keep my mind off the exertion. My physical trainer says he would have to use one, too. I’m speaking from the standpoint of a man in his late middle age who discovered a vital piece of his life that had been missing for decades. I never had an interest in sports when I was… Read more »
I appreciate the kind words, Bill. I thought the mention of the resistance setting of your elliptical machine was a jokesy reference to your own physical courage/strength. I thought it was funny “But I will defend the “soft” guys who posted here by saying I think all they were doing was reacting against bullies who either abuse their authority or some power they have over others. I don’t think their intention was to denigrate soldiers or policemen, although I do recognize there are people (women as well as men) who harbor anti-military and anti-police attitudes. When the posters I… Read more »
In part I agree dragnet that the language used to describe Sean Hannity borders on the hysterical. I mean “less than a coward” really. You totally lost me with “..what softer men say to compensate for their shortcomings” though. An example being if someone renounces violence and refuses to use it under any circumstances does that mean they are soft? Of course not. Obviously the coach needs to revise some of his methods whatever past he is drawing his experience from. Physically berating players is displaying a lack of discipline which can only translate into their own attitudes and ultimately… Read more »
Here is what I actually said:
And my comment wasn’t confined to the basketball coach situation, but was meant to address the “moral” courage > physical courage notion more generally.
“Physical courage is easier than moral courage”. This is not true. This is idle musing of someone who, in all likelihood, will never be confronted with a scenario in which he has to demonstrate true, genuine, and sustained physical courage at great cost to himself. If you were a bit more humble and not given to making sweeping claims, you would say that it really depends. It depends on the circumstances and on the people involved. It depends on what mood you’re in and what you had for breakfast. It depends on what’s at stake. There are indeed times when… Read more »
There’s nothing like a pseudonymous blowhard telling a writer on a website that his piece is “idle musing of someone who, in all likelihood, will never be confronted with a scenario in which he has to demonstrate true, genuine, and sustained physical courage at great cost to himself.” Coming from an individual who doesn’t even have the courage to sign his own name to his words, that’s rich. The author is 100% right. Physical courage is much, much easier than moral courage. Throwing yourself bodily at a situation is never harder than doing the right thing, or saying the right… Read more »
No, dude, he isn’t…depending on the situation. It’s really easy to sit behind your computer screen and talk about how physical courage is much easier than “moral” courage…in a world of safe, comfortable cubicle jobs, professional police forces, and drone warfare. Of course you think physical courage is easier—when other guys are in Afghanistan taking the bullets. If you ask them, I think you’re likely to get more mixed opinions.
Some self-awareness on this point is in order—but I do agree with you on Sean Hannity.
I think it might be best to bring them together, moral courage often leads to psychical or emotional sacrifice. Socrates, Jesus, ect ect., their moral resolve lead to the greatest sacrifice. I do think its troubling, however, that courage (especially when linked to the masculine) is associated with the assertion of dominance over others.
– Ross Steinborn
“I think it might be best to bring them together, moral courage often leads to psychical or emotional sacrifice.” Yes, Ross—I agree with this. This is a far more thoughtful, adult and nuanced opinion to have than the blanket statements proffered by Michael Rowe and author of this post. “I do think its troubling, however, that courage (especially when linked to the masculine) is associated with the assertion of dominance over others.” But you go off the rails here. Courage and dominance many times go hand-in-hand—if only because courage is what is summoned when a man needs to impose his… Read more »
Thanks, drag, you just made my point. It took moral courage for them to agree to join up to fight in the war because they believed it was the right thing to do. And seriously, if trotting out the troops and exploiting them to make your point is the best you can do, you’re probably more of a stranger to moral courage than you are to the physical variety.
And again–you don’t even have the courage to sign your own name to your posts, physical OR moral.
Thank you for perfectly saying exactly what I wanted to say. I don`t agree with Hanity on this and I don`t like him at all but he is actually showing exactly the kind of moral courage the author claims he does not. He is standing up for what he belives in knowing full well he will be villifed by many, many people. What he stands for might be wrong, I think it is, but he has the balls to stand up for a very unpoppular opinion. In my experience the people who have physical courage also tend to have a… Read more »
This was addressed to Dragnet.
Yeah, Hannity’s a really vulnerable lone wolf, isn’t he? Except for the multimillion dollar television war machine behind him, protecting him, of course.