May 14, 2007
On Loyalty
Of all the qualities a person may possess,
be they inherently positive or negative, a useful place may be made for all
them except loyalty. Loyalty is a willful act made at the behest of a superior,
an act whose only guaranty is continued subservience. Loyalty imposes the
impression of honor on outwardly unyielding faith in a poor idea or person.
A banker in his 30s gets a job with a
maverick investor. Many quiet meetings and transactions surround the maverick's
method for picking investments. The banker is privy to many of these secrets
and is well rewarded for his energetic and discreet compliance. He buys a
stately house just out of the city. People say taxi and he thinks of a
helicopter. A journalist discovers the method is grossly illegal. The banker
stays on through the investigations; given his rewards he feels this is the just
choice. His job has given him his possessions and blessed his resume; the
maverick's reputation must be preserved within a larger narrative.
Every weekend a mother and father visit
their daughter at a juvenile detention center. The bus takes three hours. The
wait at the detention center is twice as long. They spin great webs of contexts
that make sense of her crime, but they do not ultimately stand by or try to justify
the crime itself. Sometimes they are not let into the center. Sometimes they
are let in and she is moody and unmanageable. They go to see their daughter
every weekend. They love her.
Peter Gotti, older brother of John Gotti,
was the last head from a long generation of the Gambino crime family. He did
not rule long, indicted with several other made men, all elderly, hunched over
and harassed by their bodies. At trial there were as many turncoats as there
were defendants, old men as well, trading their testimony and the mafia's
lifetime oath of loyalty, for however many less years in the cells for one
cooperators are kept in for their own safety. Peter Gotti was found guilty, his
appeal has been filed.
Zimbabwe. Burma. Any government from the
60s through the 80s whose leader had big dark glasses welded to his temples.
All governments founded on loyalty, all corrupt and doomed. See the current
American administration the comparison of which is no great stretch. One is to
the others as stable, very rich America is to decidedly unstable, much poorer
countries. Permanent war, the propagation of one party and the obfuscation of
the press (worse states castrate the press, America's was emasculated into
impotence, left making excuses, “I swear this never happened before.”) are
wholly unintelligent from the point of view of good government, and all are
acts typical of governments crammed with loyalists.
Minority groups are often what would be
called loyal amongst each other. But this is the affection that comes from
shared experience, spread out concentrically, because the minority experience
is generally an unstable and/or subservient one. They care for each other
because others don't.
Two brother's sit in a bar, one drunk. They
love each other very much, talk to each other every day. The drunk brother gets
in a verbal altercation and a fight is inevitable. The sober brother steps in,
punching the man his brother faces, hurting him. A regrettable act of love.
An old man dies. One granddaughter loved
the man so much she charges money she will not be able to pay back anytime
soon, flying from another country to attend the funeral. Another granddaughter,
who loved him equally and lives in the same town as the funeral, cannot leave
her house she is so devastated. Neither qualifies as loyal or not, both are
acts born from love.
A soldier lies wounded in an Army hospital,
alive in a manner of speaking, burned his body over and sort of breathing. In
2003 his brigade marched from the Kuwaiti border to Baghdad where for a week
they drove up and down a highway celebrating, shooting wildly. The soldier went
home and was brought back by the Army for another year, then another year and a
last year the beginning of which a bomb exploded under him. Many explosions
could have done the same, but he always missed their acquaintance through luck
and the help of other soldiers. His troop contains many personalities, some of
whom he likes, others less so. No reward, except the company of these
personalities, exists equivalent to what the soldier has seen and had to do. He
regrets that he is not with his troop now. His is the saddest, sorriest love of
all.
Posted by Alex de Lucena at 08:21 AM | Permalink
Comments
This pretentious essay is ridiculously cynical and based on half-baked fictional scenarios that don't rise above the level of a trite novel.
Posted by: Edward Williams | May 14, 2007 1:06:25 PM
I think it is lovely!
Posted by: Abbas Raza | May 14, 2007 1:28:39 PM
Edward, is there any particularly constructive reason to make a comment such as yours? The maxim which ends in "Don't say anything at all" comes to mind.
Posted by: Justin Stanley | May 14, 2007 4:04:58 PM
isn't it a compelling way to make a couple simple points: war sucks. corruption kills.
cliches are cliches for a reason. if there's weakness of style or one feels their emotions are toyed with- well sobeit in the name of an end to the dastardly goings-on in the fertile crescent.
Posted by: zee beams | May 14, 2007 5:13:05 PM
Abbas--
We are in complete agreement for once---
That's scary
Scott
Posted by: Scott Ahlf | May 14, 2007 11:13:12 PM
The irony of loyalty as the commentators take sides.
Hmmm, and what is the most pathetic of all?
Posted by: J | May 15, 2007 11:01:31 AM
Some are good, some are cliched. Some are heartfelt and realistic. Others are blunt and wreak of undergraduate street politics - yes, the Bush administration is just like Burma - they might as well be twins!
Merely saying what I see.
DU
Posted by: The Mechanical Eye | May 15, 2007 1:06:14 PM
The pretension resides in the author couching his leading opinions (which practically everyone agrees with) under the theme of "loyalty", upon which totally general moral sentiment he makes a dumb attack. He then proceeds to make sporadic analogies that are striving and scattershot, and only randomly treat his "loyalty" theme. Just so it will seem thoughtful when he brings out his most powerful story, which anyway sounds like he copied it from somewhere. I am sorry this annoys me so much; it is the combination of sloppy thinking and stylistic bravado.
Posted by: Edward Williams | May 15, 2007 2:25:58 PM
One extreme is as bad as the next, the problem is our obsession with adopting extremes. I'd no more want to live in a world of no loyalty than I would one of blind loyalty. How does something even as common as a marriage or a business partnership work with zero loyalty?
How about recognizing a rational point at which you're loyal to those who have earned it and to your values, the values more so than the people if they betray them.
Posted by: Dan | May 17, 2007 2:28:40 AM
Post a comment