Lessons from Fred Rogers
nextavenue.org
nextavenue.org
For a significantly better read, refer to the following profile written for esquire by Tom Junod:
http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/interviews/a27134/ca...
You will laugh, and cry, and ultimately remember why Fred Rogers was as important to you as a child, and why his lessons are still directly applicable today.
For example:
"I believe that appreciation is a holy thing, that when we look for what's best in the person we happen to be with at the moment, we're doing what God does; so in appreciating our neighbor, we're participating in something truly sacred." -- Fred Rogers
I believe Fred Rogers didn't believe in God because he was a great man. I believe he was who he was partly because of his belief in God.
If Mister Rogers didn't think that it was necessary to bring god into the discussion to teach those values, I don't think it can really be considered an improvement.
He never mentioned God, but taught more of his faith than 1000 TV evangelists put together.
I was actually saying the opposite. He wasn't ordained to not talk about God. On the contrary. He just didn't preach on his kids' TV show.
Regardless of what their faith is, I wish good people actually "talked the talk" that matched their "walk" more often. Lots of people act responsibly: being productive, staying off drugs, caring well for their families, generally treating people well, being generous, and so on. But then they think it's unimportant to teach other people to do the same thing.
So the otherwise unguided or uninformed are starting from square one, causing a lot of pain for themselves, their loved ones, and the rest of their communities. While the rest of us tell them to "find what's right for them" and feel good about ourselves for not being judgmental.
While watching them I was trying to figure out, what is it about this gentle, soft-spoken person that is so utterly captivating? Had he been speaking in front of the Senate today, I can't imagine a single person stopping to check their phone.
I'm sure the answer is multi-faceted, but I think a huge aspect is his head-to-toe, 100% Authenticity. I think there's an important lesson to draw there, and its something I see repeated elsewhere (blogosphere, TV, etc.). There's something captivating about authenticity.
The interesting thing is that it doesn't have to be as pure as Rogers'. Sometimes it is just an undercurrent with lots of stylization on top, but that authenticity somehow resonates with humans.
It also reminds me of an old Charlie Rose interview with Quentin Tarantino (to jump to the other end of the spectrum). He is talking about the process of writing, and how he has this inner voice constantly reminding him, "tell the truth", and how he can't watch his movies with some family / friends because it's too embarrassing: he's put a bit of himself up on the screen.
Now obviously Pulp Fiction is not a true story, but I think what he means is that under the hyper-stylized veneer, there is an authentic voice, even in a bizarre made-up world, and that, as much as the shocking revival scene, or hilarious Walken monologue, struck a nerve with audiences.
So my takeaway from Fred Rogers is to be authentic. Even if not as completely as him, make sure in whatever you do, there is some aspect of your true self in it. It resonates with people, and it probably feels good for you, too.
I think this is a fantastic point, especially at a time where it seems like just about everybody has an angle and an agenda. When you're cynical and you're presented with somebody who seems authentic and genuine, you start looking for the "tells" and the weasel words...the cracks in the smiley-face veneer. The longer one has to look for them, the more astonishing the person seems to be (and, hopefully, turns out to be).
I think the other captivating aspect of Fred Rogers is that he seemed truly concerned about individuals, and that was reflected in his ability to communicate. He didn't lump people into demographic groups, or political tribes, or any other types of social categorization that seems the standard nowadays. I'm sure he recognized such efforts, but they didn't matter when it came to making a simple human connection.
I think this interest and drive to connect with people is equally as important as his authenticity. A Ron Swanson-type person could be authentic and admirable, but nowhere near as empathetic. By the same token, someone could be as empathetic, but if they were inconsistent they wouldn't be as admirable.
Fred Rogers was a rare cat indeed, at least in terms of those who were/are in the media. As someone who feels nowhere near as consistent or empathetic, my respect for him has skyrocketed since having children.
My mom met him. She worked PR for the United Way in Pittsburgh and did a favor for someone at PBS. They asked what they could do in return and she said she wanted to meet Mr Rogers.
They had a wonderful lunch a few days later