No doubt about it. Letterman helped himself. He created the illusion of sincere, hip and funny all at once. It wasn’t funny. It really wasn’t hip, unless of course, you’re a Peter Pan man.
He gave us a line or two about ‘Lutheran guilt’ and said he was loaded with it – but showed no evidence of remorse. This may be as close as we’ll get to sociopathic behavior by a popular adult entertainer. Why the applause?
He did a great job of leveling the poor unfortunate and inept blackmailer, though he seems an easy target. What he didn’t or couldn’t do was show any feeling for a) his wife, b) his children, or, c) the women he used. Is it funny that a powerful man uses nameless women for his own ends? Is it commendable that he doesn’t apologize to them and instead feigns a kind of care for them by ‘protecting’ their identity?
His ‘confession’ wasn’t confession at all. It was a CYA. His position demands that. But the rest of us would do well to ask “why the applause?” “Why the laughter?”
Marriage at the level of entertainment is not marriage at all but a series of elicited images. We use our history and our foibles to earn a few bucks. In that world marriage is an afterthought, a convenience but no longer a commitment.
We want to say “hello Mrs. Letterman. Sorry for the blip in your husband’s career. We’d like to invite you to talk about your marriage. We’d like to know whether you could applaud or laugh at your husband’s performance. We’d like to know if this very public event will open new conversations between you. We sure hope that neither of you are shamed by this. Our wish is that as complex as this whole thing may become for you that, additionally, it opens new and profound conversations for you both. We hope that through this experience, your marriage can be reborn.”
Stephen W. Frueh M.Div, PhD is a couples’ coach, mentor, leadership consultant, writer and speaker. He lives with his wife and eleven year old daughter in Ventura County, California.
You can email Stephen on stephen@marriageconversation.com or use our contact form.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Collateral damage aside, I like the style that busts the slime-ball (the black-mailer, not the fillanderer) out loud, very publicly, no holds barred, no apology. I don’t think it’s sociopathic. And, although we don’t (yet) know all the converging angles to this story, I applaud Letterman’s blunt disclosure. I cannot imagine he hasn’t considered the impact (in fact NOT collateral damage but central: to his marriage and to his family, legally, professionally, personally). And I don’t imagine that this disclosure wasn’t at least partially staged, set, choreographed as much as much of the rest of the improvised bits are on his show. But, (dueling integreties) – the blackmailer, the bottom-feeder that blackmails, his stock-in-trade the peddling of shame and human foibles, is the more insidious social cancer, and must be excised first. There’s some courage shown, I think, in a proclamation that spotlights this loud and clear. Now comes, for Letterman and his family, the years of the aftermath. Whether its repair – of the injured marriage, of his reputation, of the reputations of his staff – or “hip” status-quo, or some other response – is yet to be seen. Likely on prime-time.