What was the most memorable moment in the history of Time Magazine? It arrived, in my opinion, with the 1993 review of the year, when the iconic publication named Joe McGinniss's biography of Ted Kennedy, "The Last Brother," as Worst Book of the Year — in both the fiction and nonfiction categories.

Critics of the long-serving Massachusetts senator might forgive the author's many contrivances and literary transgressions. But the book discredits itself as a work of history through its unsubstantiated claims and unapologetic fabrications.

Violations of historical authenticity are not limited to political hit pieces, however. They also appear in romanticized paeans glorifying figures whose lives were far more shaded, sordid or soiled.

One example is "American Caesar," the 1978 biography of Douglas MacArthur by William Manchester. In his unbounded adulation for the dramaturgical general's military genius, the author downplays or ignores MacArthur's uncontrollable ego, authoritarian overreach, insubordination and catastrophic strategic failures.

By doing so, the work departs from biography and becomes this week's entry into the Ethical Lexicon:

Hagiography (ha*gi*og*ra*phy/ hag-ee-og-RUH-fee) noun

A biography of a saint or holy person; any overly admiring writing that treats its subject with flawless, uncritical devotion.

In contrast, Ron Chernow's biography "Alexander Hamilton" is a genuine masterpiece. The author allows us to celebrate the extraordinary talents and brilliant machinations that make Hamilton the indisputable Father of the American Economy without whitewashing his temper, his impulsivity or his infidelity. By witnessing how Hamilton struggled with his own conflicted nature and sometimes sabotaged his own agenda, readers find inspiration and motivation for contending with their own personal challenges and inner demons.

Too often, we convince ourselves that (what we see as) acts of heroism excuse or erase character defects and other near-fatal flaws; or, just as easily, we determine that intemperate behavior invalidates all noteworthy accomplishments. Consider how our current president is hailed by half the country as the messiah and excoriated by the other half as the antichrist, with very little in between.

This kind of biographical caricature paints a dangerously simplistic picture of humanity divided into saints and villains. Even worse, it contributes to an acrimonious culture that glorifies political jihadism as a virtue, sanctioning the annihilation of opponents rather than championing principled compromise and the search for common ground.

Hagiography often waxes nostalgic for more temperate times; but this, too, ignores reality. There has always been acrimony in American politics. Two-and-a-half centuries ago, broadsheets published by political firebrands leveled the vilest accusations, real and imagined, while resorting to character assassination and innuendo no less vitriolic than today's.

So, were things truly better, once upon a time? They were.

So fierce was the political and personal enmity of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson that they could barely stand the sight of one another. But when George Washington announced he would not seek reelection after his first term, each of them went, independently, to tell the president that he had no choice. No one but Washington possessed the gravitas and even-handedness to hold the country together. Despite their differences, Hamilton and Jefferson recognized that only through moderation could the young republic survive.

It's hard to imagine this happening today, as extremists oust moderates in one primary election after another. We don't seem to care if we burn down our own house, as long as our side gets to strike the match.

When reality takes a back seat to ideology, we cherry-pick facts and spin them to advance preconceived perspectives. Indulging a superficial view of humans and human history, we misinterpret and misconstrue events while attributing qualities to others that they neither merit nor deserve. As we preach to the choir, we discredit ourselves in the eyes of those who see the world differently, radicalizing them as we become more radicalized ourselves.

By rejecting a balanced view of ancient and contemporary history in favor of hagiographic narratives, whether in print, online or simply in our own imaginations, we make ourselves less balanced and more superficial while normalizing extremist ideas and behavior. It's time for the silent, moderate majority to speak up with one voice, reclaim the rational center and marginalize the extremists who are leading us toward moral chaos and political catastrophe.

See more by Yonason Goldson and features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists; visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2026

CREATORS.COM

Photo credit: Patrick Fore at Unsplash