Sam Malone is bald?

Ted Danson is an idealist.

He was Sam Malone on Cheers, the recovering alcoholic ex-pitcher with the lady obsession. He’s also a “Hollywood liberal” – that is, he supports Democrats, goes to Barbara Streisand parties, and while not stupid, boasts no great political insight.

Being a Democrat does not make one an idealist. Far from it. The reason I [speculate] that he is an idealist is a little thing he did when Cheers ended its run. The entire cast, past and present, came out to be applauded and stood before the audience. Danson, while the cameras blazed away, took off his toupee. He wanted the world to know that he really did not have that beautiful head of hair. The back of his head was, like mine, follicle-challenged.

So here’s why I speculate: Idealists (I am one) do not like inner turmoil – that is, it upsets us when our inner selves are not congruent with our outer presentation to the world. We have to be ‘real’. We self-reflect to attain harmony with the world. Danson was obviously having some turmoil, as balding Ted was not at all like beautiful Sam, and he wanted the world to know that.

That would be like Paris Hilton admitting she has no talent, or Dick Cheney no empathy. It isn’t done very often. And usually when we see someone voluntarily bares his soul in public, it’s a sign of idealism.

Here’s the other thing about Ted Danson that it does not hurt to speculate about: He’s pretty. A man with such good looks has more career options than we ordinary folks, and will find it easier to make his way. Acting is a common choice for very good looking people, and to succeed they have to work very hard at their craft. That is how Danson developed his abilities.

He did not develop his intellect. He didn’t have to. He’s not stupid. Idealism makes him a Democrat, but not an insightful political person. I am finding a lot of that around.

I catch a lot of hell because I probe people I meet on the Internet – I have only their words and tone, and yet intuit the inner meaning of their comments, and draw conclusions based on those clues. How dare I! But when a person writes on these pages, he/she reveals a whole lot, and it doesn’t take a genius to piece together things. So I look at how people present, see clues, and draw conclusions about those people that are contrary to the persona they want to project. It infuriates them!

People do the same sort of sleuthing about me … am I a complete phony? World weary? Pseudo-intellect? A cross-dresser? Do I work from my mother’s basement?

Usually, when someone says something about me that is true, it stings. I reject it. Then I ponder it. Then I cop to it. I am, after all, an idealist, and it is that last feature, the copping, that gives me inner and outer harmony.

Idealists, by the way, are often annoying. We don’t make good intellectuals, as there is too much “should” in us, and not enough “is.” We make terrible politicians, as that profession requires deceit even of honest men and women. We usually end up as teachers or historians or counselors. An idealist accountant is like a brown polar bear – pretty rare. Idealists started the feminist movement – easy enough to see. Dropping bras was akin to dropping toupee. And we have, by definition, never had an idealistic president. They all claim to be, but that phoniness is part of being a successful politician.

Just so you know – if you need to understand me better, now you do. I never set out to annoy you. I was only being true to self.
_________________
PS: As I gather from Swede’s comment below, one might conclude from this that I regard idealism as some sort of superior trait, and that this post is is just bragging. Far from it – idealism is a curse, as it takes we who suffer from it out of the mainstream. If all of us were idealists, very little would ever be accomplished. We have a role to play, but a minor one, kind of public conscience, but that is an annoyance to most people. Compromise is an essential part of any endeavor, and idealists don’t do that very well.