Vice, Virtue, and Self-Confrontation Theme Analysis

The exemplars in David Brooks’s The Road to Character tackle “life’s essential problem,” which the author describes in the words of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: “the line separating good and evil passes […] right through the human heart.” Thus, Brooks’s work rests on this idea that human nature contains both vice and virtue. This dualism leads the book’s exemplars to believe that in order to become good, people must battle their natural sins and weaknesses. Not only does this battle build inner character, the dualism between vice and virtue also shapes people’s approaches to greater causes. For instance, civil rights activists Randolph and Rustin justify their strategies against racial injustice by maintaining that they themselves are liable to vice; they practice nonviolence, in part, so that power doesn’t corrupt their own moral character. Similarly, Eisenhower warned against the dangers of unchecked power, urging the nation to take a moderate approach to change. At the heart of his philosophy of power is the belief that man is “a problem to himself” and liable to become corrupt in the absence of self-restraint. Through his exemplars’ battles with their own potential for corruption, Brooks argues that it is only through confronting personal vice that a person can effectively fight societal vices, too.

Early on, Brooks establishes that human nature contains both virtue and vice. This dual nature shows itself as “some perversity” that causes people to put the things that they love in the wrong order of importance. Although Brooks claims that every person knows deep down that the love of one’s family is more important than the love of money, for example, people perversely put the love of money first. In these moments, a person gives in to the vice of weakness by not making the virtuous choice. Because it’s human nature to choose vice over virtue, then, good character is not “innate or automatic.” Rather, good character requires the constant, daily effort of resisting one’s weaknesses. Significantly, the constant effort to be more moral each day results in lasting change. Each phase of struggle against one’s weakness leaves “a residue on such a person’s soul” and “reshape[s] their inner core,” giving them clarity, confidence, and stability. Therefore, the process of ongoing struggle against one’s vices is the only action that creates enduring good.

As well as achieving inner goodness, the confrontation of one’s weakness is essential for achieving external good. In their civil rights activism, Randolph and Rustin knew they could end up being corrupted by whatever power they attained. For instance, they could become hard-hearted as their hatred for their enemies increased. This potential for corruption justified their actions. Their self-suspicion caused them to use nonviolent tactics to fight injustice, thereby preventing themselves from giving in to the violence and hatred they knew they themselves were capable of. Moreover, their self-disciplined, nonviolent protests achieved the most effective social change. Through peaceful protest, they provoked their aggressors to expose their unjust violence in lashing out against the nonviolent. In this way, the constant confrontation of their own weakness allowed Randolph and Rustin to affect lasting change in society.

Similarly, because Eisenhower believed that human beings are corrupted by power, his political philosophy advocated for a modest and limited use of power. Understanding that he was born with both virtues and vices, Eisenhower built a character over time that was well-suited to his political aims. He maintained an outward simplicity that helped him appeal to the average American by making him seem like someone they could relate to. In so doing, he protected himself from being corrupted by wielding superiority over his people, holding himself to a standard of humility and compassion. Not only that, but he also advocated for a moderate political approach. He warned against the “national ruin” that would arise from unchecked power and advocated for prudence and humility. Like the nation’s founders, he feared the rash changes that society would make if people did not restrain themselves. All in all, Eisenhower’s political philosophy was shaped by his understanding that “man is a problem to himself”—the understanding that human nature is liable to be bad if left unrestricted. This understanding caused him to adopt the strategy of self-restraint in both his character-building and in his political policies, believing that freely exercised power would unleash human nature’s natural vice.

Although Eisenhower, Randolph, and Rustin were each in positions of power, their stories suggest that self-restraint effects more change than power can. These exemplars knew from personal experience that they were flawed, and that they had to actively hold back the bad parts of their nature to be good. This self-confrontation of their own potential sinfulness caused them to stand constant guard against the vice within themselves, therefore suiting them to be just people of power.