Take that to the bank

THE phrase “you can take that to the bank” has become part of common parlance. It is uttered in conversations when someone swears he is telling the truth, and therefore his word is bankable. It means that one’s character is impeccable, his integrity unquestioned, and his moral values uncompromised.

The phrase, as the words go, really meant that once upon a time, someone’s character was worth money in the bank—that one could literally go to a banker, and with merely one’s personal promise as a collateral, one would be allowed to part with the bank’s money, to repay another day. Today, of course, this would be almost an impossibility. No bank takes one’s word of honor personally anymore.

This may just be a symbolism of the signs of the times, but a telling analogy nonetheless. There was, as they say, in the halcyon days of old—a great value that was placed on values (pun intended), and that these days, this value has been greatly devalued (pun intended, again).

In our recently concluded presidential elections, for example, a great deal of emphasis was placed on who among the candidates had the right values to lead the country forward. On the one hand, there were presidential contenders like Mar Roxas who were seen to possess the old-fashioned values of gentlemanly chivalry. Mar was well-spoken, well- mannered, and generally a very presentable person. On the other hand is nowPresident Rodrigo Duterte. Uncouth, foul-mouthed and short-tempered, he was nevertheless seen as the person with the correct set of “values” for today’s times, suggesting that the days of chivalry represented by Roxas are now behind us. Duterte, by winning the people’s vote, represents what values society now seems to hold dear. And it is not what many of us are used to.

America, too, to some extent, is also undergoing a metamorphosis in what its people see as the ideal traits in their leadership. The rise of Donald Trump to the top of the Republican Party is no coincidence. Seen as a Duterte-esque figure, he is seen by many as the ideal man to lead the United States through the next few years, picked ahead of Southern gentlemen like Jeb Bush and others of his category.

Some of these were bound to happen. Times are insecure, what with ISIS exporting its attacks to borders far and wide. And so it is that people look to those who are deemed strong and forceful, to give them a measure of protection when those around them cannot. When in times of crisis, the weak look to the strong, no matter if the strong themselves carry a lot of undesirable baggage.

Fair enough as it goes, but there is a certain sense of danger in all of this. The danger that on balance, what we now hold to be pre-eminent are those people who are convenient for the times, even if on balance they are flawed characters that once upon a time, would not measure up to the standards normally set for those in high positions of power.

And there is a danger, too, in imitation. Already as it is, our young have lost a good deal of their moral compass, owing in part to the rise of the Kardashians as the role models for people of a certain age. Now to add the Trumps and Dutertes to this mix is a dangerous and potent cocktail indeed. Kim Kardashian, for all her popularity, does not really carry as much legitimacy as the president of the United States would. So people do take her pronouncements and example with a grain of salt or two. But Trump would not be so lightly regarded. And nor would Duterte. They are legitimate role models, insofar as their power and positions go.

And this is where I sense the new danger we are in. In the present age where values are relative, where convenience is king, and whoever is useful for the time goes, we could see our next generation drifting further and further away from the values that in days gone by, could be “taken to the bank.”