The ramblings of an Eternal Student of Life
. . . still studying and learning how to live

Latest Rambling Thoughts:
 
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Politics ...

David Brooks had an interesting little article in the NY Times the other day about the “tea party movement” and what it means. Brooks thinks that it reflects a growing public exasperation with “the educated class”.

Brooks has a valid point, even though the whole “tea party” thing probably goes beyond this. In order to be exasperated with the educated class, you first have to BE educated (i.e., takes one to know one). Sara Palin, their heroine, is not exactly noted for her intellectual brilliance. Her upcoming speech before the Tea Party convention in Nashville should be a hoot.

But the tea party folk certainly are exasperated, and much of what they are exasperated about was put into place by very highly educated people, both in government and business (e.g., the collateralized debt obligations and government homeownership programs that made sub-prime mortgages so popular). There certainly is an anti-intellectualist wind blowing in American politics these days, perhaps part of the expected backlash against Barack Obama (and the ‘too-big-to-fail’ financial institutions, and the PhD experts who confuse people e.g. regarding mammogram necessity).

Aside from his good looks and his oratorical skills, Mr. Obama’s main calling card is his education and intellectual achievement. He’s the first president in a while who taught at a university (and not just any university; Harvard, of course). A lot of Americans voted for Mr. Obama on the rationale that he is more intellectual than both his predecessor and his 2008 opponent, and thus could better get us out of the various calamities (recession, unemployment, the real estate collapse, Iraq, Afghanistan, rising gasoline prices, the growing deficit) that happened on Mr. Bush’s watch. Most of those messes have not yet been resolved. But despite this, Mr. Obama decided to involve the nation in two more complex and contentious issues, i.e. health care reform and greenhouse gas controls (i.e., cap and trade). The nation thus seems to be in political overload right now.

I myself have no use for Palin and the tea party thing. Their reactionary response against intellectual leadership is quite pernicious. But I do have to wonder about Mr. Obama’s unspoken premise, i.e. that intelligent, well-educated people like him know best what to do for the masses, and will change things for the better if left alone. (Regarding education, Mr. Obama is unlike the 2/3 of the country who don’t have a college degree; or much higher if you limit Mr. Obama to the elite who graduated from America’s top schools. Ironically that would include G.W. Bush, although he didn’t act like it, which Mr. Obama and his team do).

Over the past 300 years or so, the notion has arisen in various places that power should be given over to “the best and the brightest”. Actually, you can trace this theory back to Plato in The Republic, i.e. his ideal of the “philosopher-king”. And of course the ancient Chinese created a class of educated bureaucrats in the tradition of Confucius; even in the Dark Ages, Charlemagne pushed the ideal of education onto his lackeys. But it was during the Enlightenment that the notion of the leadership of the intellectually elite really gained traction.

Just how well has this notion fared in the real world? Well, there was the French Revolution; that didn’t turn out so good. But then again, the leaders of the American Revolution also drank from the wells of Enlightenment thought. And they gave the world a practical blueprint for a better form of government, one that balanced the ancient ideals of democracy, constitution, human rights and freedoms, limited collective powers and ‘checks and balances’ – i.e., balances between elitism and mob democracy. Karl Marx took the Enlightenment ideal to its limit, saying that Utopia was just a matter of science, along with the strong will to force that science on an unruly world. This didn’t work out too well in practice. But in China, a hybrid, Confucian post-Marxism is having some success in raising the living standards of millions, perhaps billions of people (while continuing to deny them political rights, in the Marxist tradition).

In the USA, the public has occasionally given blank checks to its “best and brightest”, again with varying results. There was Woodrow Wilson back in the early years of the 20th Century; his Presidency didn’t fare so well. But FDR was quite the intellectual elitist, and yet the public was ultimately grateful for his leadership. Then came John F. Kennedy, but his experiment with “Camelot” ended too abruptly to judge whether he was ultimately successful (e.g., could he have avoided the tar pit that the Vietnam War became, given that he started us on the road down into that pit?). Jimmy Carter seemed like the intelligent alternative to Richard Nixon’s cynicism, but in the end he failed to inspire the nation to better things. And now we have Barack Obama quickly spending his blank checks from a near-landslide election. Is he using those “checks” wisely? The tea party folk obviously don’t think so.

I myself don’t have an Ivy League background, but I do highly value intelligence, rationality and study. However, as to whether those things can be the sine qua non for successful political leadership, things get murky. We certainly do want a basic level of brightness and education and general worldliness in our leaders. Sarah Palin exhibits the dangers of appointing a leader not having this. But book smarts are not enough. Our best and most successful leaders have blended a strong if not terribly sophisticated sense of historical right and wrong, together with a practical common sense about politics and public perception. They certainly weren’t angels, they certainly made moral compromises; but yet they did get good things done. I’m thinking here about Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, maybe even Dwight Eisenhower (he started the Interstate Highways; too bad we don’t take care of them these days). I’ll even give the Gipper (Ronald Reagan) a tip of the hat, even though I disagreed with much of what he believed in. Reagan could have used more education and intelligence to balance off his righteous populism.

So we definitely do want more than intelligence and education in a leader. We certainly should look into a candidate’s character, into her or his moral quality and vision for the nation (expecting some stain and compromise; you can’t be a politician without some bloodshed). We also must consider his or her basic common sense, along with their appreciation for the perceptions and concerns of the public. Even if the public is not always right, even if a highly educated man like Barack Obama sees more than most others do, a leader ultimately has to keep the crowds happy in order to get anything done. The whole tea party thing indicates that Mr. Obama is having some trouble in this regard.

(I also wonder about Mr. Obama’s moral vision for the nation; I think he’s an honorable man, more so than Bill Clinton was. But he seems to apologize too much for America’s past. Apologies are certainly in order, but Mr. Obama fails to cite our flaws as a lapse from a still-living American ideal, a human ideal that certainly is better than most of what the rest of the world offers.)

◊   posted by Jim G @ 4:41 pm      
 
 


  1. Jim,
    As to Mr. Brooks’ thought that the "tea party movement" is the result of "growing public exasperation with 'the educated class' ": I do not agree or maybe I should say I do not agree completely.

    It may be that there is an element of Mr. Brooks' response in the "tea party movement"; however, my "take" on the growing phenomenon of a return by a portion of today’s society to a very conservative stance (or as I see it) to the “good old days” has a different root. I see this phenomenon as the response of a portion of society to the myriad problems of the world that tend to put people on psychological “overload” resulting in a generalized fear and anxiety. Most especially, this phenomenon occurs when the problems of the world affect the individual in his/her own personal life, such as fear of job loss, actual unemployment, fear for personal safety (which is only too rampant in many cities of the world) caused not only by only too real terrorist threats but also threats to physical safety from unlawful/illegal groups who have no hesitation to blatantly kill others when they feel a need to exert their “territorial rights.” I speak here of drug cartels throughout the world and gangs in cities big and small(er).

    This “return to the good-ole-days” phenomenon is seen not only in politics but also in religion(s). When people become overwhelmed with their own personal problems, they tend to look for simple answers to the solution to their problems. So, they look to the government or religious authorities to “solve” the problems that plague them. It’s so easy to say, the real problem is that we don’t have what we used to have in the good old days when these problems did not exist. Therefore, we need to return to the good old days. Or there is a tendency to look to authorities, in effect saying: tell us what the answer is, and we will do it.

    Thus, for instance in religion, people will “return to God.” Have you seen the recent ads on TV for the “Catholics Come Home” commercial? This ad in effect says just do what the Catholic Church says, and all will be well. But this return to the Catholic Church is not a return to a thinking laity; it is a return to a compliant laity. I have seen this phenomenon concretely in a person I have dearly loved who when faced with serious health problems decided that her problems were caused by her “defection from God”; she returned to a never-question-the-Church stance that lasted most of her life—although I must say that her health was often very poor; but she never seemed to notice that inconsistency.

    I think a similar psychological phenomenon is at work in the politics of the world today in many countries. For instance, it seems to me that at the heart of the terrorist thinking is a similar type desire to return to simple answers. If enough people blow themselves up, we will return to life as it “should be”—the way it used to be when there was not so much chaos, hardship, psychological anxiety to survive, and general distress. (Here I must say I exclude Osama bin Laden as I see his “problem” in all this as the result of his feeling he has not been acknowledged for his abilities by his family and given the power he feels he deserves.)
    (Continued below)
    MCS

    Comment by MCS — January 10, 2010 @ 8:10 am

  2. (Continued from above)
    As regards the return to conservatism in the U.S. (and here I include the Sara Palins of this world and those who follow them), I see the same thing at work. In fact, I have read a statement made by Sara Palin herself that supports my theory. She has said (here I paraphrase) that she really sees no need to “know” all those statistics and facts that politicians quote in their speeches and debates because in the end people don’t want to be bothered with all the facts and stats; they just want simple answers. (Out of the horse’s mouth, so to say.)

    And it may not necessarily be that people are “against” education or “the educated.” The desire for a return to easy, simple answers may simply be the result of people being overwhelmed with their own problems of survival (keeping/finding a job, supporting a family, keeping their marriages intact, trying to find a modicum of happiness in life, etc.). Adding to their “problems” the “burden” of finding complicated answers to most complex problems simply overwhelms them, and they say, let somebody else handle that and just give me the answer. Unfortunately, that solution is never the answer in such complex times.

    And if I may make a comment on your inclusion of Ronald Reagan as one of the better presidents we have had: I fail to see his inclusion in the group you mention. We need to remember that for at least his second term (and perhaps part of his first term) he was suffering from Alzheimer’s. I do not blame him, but I do blame those who did not disclose his condition. I fail to see him in a group of outstanding presidents.

    And lastly: If you will note at least two of the presidents you mention, Lincoln and Truman, were widely reviled during their own terms of office. (In fact, I clearly remember Truman’s being in office and how he was regarded. My father may have been the only person in the country who liked him, and my father liked him for his “the buck stops here” stance.) Thus the fact that Obama may not be well thought of in his present term of office is no evidence of the kind of president he will be regarded as in the future. Just this last year I read a book on Lincoln, and it amazed me that the man could have stood up to the wide derision he received by the public—that is, until he was killed). So, Obama’s generally low ratings may be no indication of how he will be seen as president in the future.
    MCS

    Comment by MCS — January 10, 2010 @ 8:11 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment:


   

FOR MORE OF MY THOUGHTS, CHECK OUT THE SIDEBAR / ARCHIVES
To blog is human, to read someone's blog, divine
NEED TO WRITE ME? eternalstudent404 (thing above the 2) gmail (thing under the >) com

www.jimgworld.com - THE SIDEBAR - ABOUT ME - PHOTOS
 
OTHER THOUGHTFUL BLOGS:
 
Church of the Churchless
Clear Mountain Zendo, Montclair
Fr. James S. Behrens, Monastery Photoblog
Of Particular Significance, Dr. Strassler's Physics Blog
Weather Willy, NY Metro Area Weather Analysis
Spunkykitty's new Bunny Hopscotch; an indefatigable Aspie artist and now scholar!

Powered by WordPress