In Memoriam: Mr. American.
Tim Russert, A Guardian
By DavidMKeirsey on 06-16-2008
“He was accountable” and “He held those to account”
“He had faith in family, faith in friends, faith in God, faith in country.” – Maria Shriver
“He was the public prosecutor for the American people.” -- Mike Barnacle
The eulogies came fast and furious for one of their own: a journalist of the “first rank:” Tim Russert. The comments ranged: “He set the standard” ...“Family” ... “An everyman” ...“Hard working.” ... “Working class ethics.” ... “Always and best prepared.” ... “He was us.” ... “Persistence – an advocate for the everyman.” ... “He loved politics.” ... “He loved history” ... “An Institution.” ... “Sports manic”... “He’s more real” ... “Tim was loyal.”
Although I am consistently very Politically Incorrect, I too thought Tim Russert was the “fairest”, or at least the most neutral, journalist in mainstream media. Nevertheless, although it was not surprising to me that he was chief of staff for Democratic Senator Daniel Moynihan and in Mario Cuomo’s campaign, I had the impression that Russert was the only journalist who had very little agenda of his own, except getting the facts.
There is much more that can be said, so I will refer you to those know more about him. For example: USA Today: Remembering the Life of Tim Russert
One more (personally) sobering thought - he was slightly younger than me - we share the same birth year.
RIP
 |
 |
 |
 |
Posted by JS1000 on Jun 19, 2008
Dr. Keirsey: In conjunction with your post on Russert, I just received "Brains and Careers." The book is fascinating so far. With "Brains.." on my mind, I've been wondering the following in the light of the Russert death: I think we'd all agree that, as talented as the "Guardian" Russert was in presenting "both sides" of an issue, if the general public wants to find "ultimate truth," they should look to "Rationals." In this vein, would you say the average man, on balance, is better served looking for the "unvarnished truth" about a subject from an Architect Rational over a "Mastermind" or "Fieldmarshal"? My own guess is that Fieldmarshals and Masterminds are more prone to manipulating the "Truth" if it conflicts with a pet ideology. They are more prone to Machiavellian machinations. Meanwhile, the first allegiance of "Architects" is to reveal the "Truth," whatever its implications, come hell or high water. |
| |
 |
Posted by DavidMKeirsey on Jun 21, 2008
“Marx was right, only he got the wrong species” -- E.O. Wilson (the Ant guy) JS100, The interesting issues that you bring up are “complicated,” from my point of view. Yes, of course, Architects are the most truthful, me being the best, wisest, and most truthful of all of them ;-) Seriously, there is no simple response to your questions. I intend to do a blog on Karl Marx, an Architect Rational, as an example of a “baddie” Architect Rational. He was wrong in “his Theory.” And although he personally didn’t hurt a fly, his theories were used to excuse or rationalize the deaths of millions. Your ranking is correct but I would recommend that “average” man try to be also leery of perfect, too simplistic explanations and more importantly answers, and try to consider the context of the individual behind the argument. Who would you believe more about politics and economics, a bright Romanian who lived under Socialism most of his life, and moved to this country about ten years ago, or a “learned” tenured Berkeley professor of “political science.” On Russert, I would not say that Russert was presenting both sides of the issue. In Meet the Press, he “finds out what his guest positions are then takes the opposite side,” which is fine, but conventional and “fair.” “Talking heads” in normal media setup much of the time is good for a two horse race, but unconventional views however insightful and “true”, especially mine, ;-) will not be aired. |
| |
|
Posted by JS1000 on Jun 24, 2008
Fair enough. I didn't mean to put you on the spot, by the way. :) I think you put your answer very diplomatically. "Theories" can be always used in bad ways, I agree. But I'd like to think there should be room for those who have found "the truth," to at least be able to allude to that truth for the benefit of the thoughtful in their audience, and trust they will be responsible with the knowledge. One example might be the Harvard intellectual Harvey Mansfield, who I have tagged as an Architect Rational, (although he may be a Mastermind.) Mansfield has written on things like "manliness" and Machiavelli. He will never come right out and say something radical - he is too smart and too careful a writer for that. But if you devote the time, he draws the curtain open a bit, and rewards you with deeper, vital truths. He says he knows how "dangerous" the truth can be but feels that Western Civilization is at a point of some crisis, and these truths must be made known on some level. |
| |
|
Posted by JS1000 on Jun 24, 2008
Fair enough. I didn't mean to put you on the spot, by the way. :) I think you put your answer very diplomatically. "Theories" can be always used in bad ways, I agree. But I'd like to think there should be room for those who have found "the truth," to at least be able to allude to that truth for the benefit of the thoughtful in their audience, and trust they will be responsible with the knowledge. One example might be the Harvard intellectual Harvey Mansfield, who I have tagged as an Architect Rational, (although he may be a Mastermind.) Mansfield has written on things like "manliness" and Machiavelli. He will never come right out and say something radical - he is too smart and too careful a writer for that. But if you devote the time, he draws the curtain open a bit, and rewards you with deeper, vital truths. He says he knows how "dangerous" the truth can be but feels that Western Civilization is at a point of some crisis, and these truths must be made known on some level. |
Tim Russert's reporting style seemed fair and generous to me as well. I do play favorites, but I viewed his style as "informer" with the assumption that I was capable of making my own conclusions.