Vanity or Pride?

"Vanity and pride are different things, though the words are often used synonymously. A person may be proud without being vain. Pride relates more to our opinion of ourselves; vanity, to what we would have others think of us."  Jane Austen, from Pride and Prejudice

OK, maybe I'm just quibbling, but Jonathan Last's latest in The Weekly Standard got me to thinking.  Is President Obama guilty of vanity, as Last suggests, or is it pride that vexes him, and us?  I think it's pride.

To be precise, we should note that these categories are not exactly "either-or".  If I may correct Ms. Austen just a bit, while a person may indeed be proud without being vain, he may also be both, that is, proud and vain at the same time.  So, it might be better to ask whether Obama is more proud or more vain?  I still say it's pride.

Think about it, does Obama appear to exhibit any concern whatever about what people think of him?  In his public life, has he ever?  Even after the "shellacking" he and his party took almost two weeks ago, has he thus far focused, in any meaningful sense, on wooing back the voters who were once so enchanted by him?
By way of contrast, think of Bill Clinton, the quintessential vain politician.  There is an old story about a comment President Kennedy made to a White House gathering of Nobel Laureates.  He joked that the event was "the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever gathered at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."  When William Jefferson was president, I used to wonder, when he dined alone at the White House, not about his IQ, but whether anyone was there at all.

But this begs an important question: Which is more dangerous?  A proud president or a vain president?  While both make the list of the seven deadliest, Scripture and the Church have long taught that pride is the worst of all sins.  Therefore, Obama, if he is indeed more proud than vain, is not only worse that Clinton, he's more dangerous as well.

While I would never challenge directly the truths of either the Scriptures or the Church, I would still hasten to point out that, as far as I can tell, a proud man enjoys at least one major advantage over a vain one:  He's more honest.  In fact, for a proud man to lie to a public that he understands to be beneath him, is, well, beneath him.  A vain man, by contrast, is almost defined by mendacity.  He's a chameleon, a man who doesn't know who he is, because he can't know who he is. His audience determines it. As a result, you have to ask yourself each time you confront him, who it is, exactly, you're dealing with.

So, while a proud president may be worse, and even more dangerous than a vain one, I'll take him nevertheless.  He's the devil you know.

How about you?