There’s much to debate in Alex’s post on Benjamin Franklin.
I could, I suppose right a snarky and sarcastic post writing how party elites would never support Abraham Lincoln today due to Lincoln’s lack of formal education and use that as an argument to suggest that the Republican Party needs to reject the Mitt Romneys of the world in order to choose candidates who only have three years of formal education.
In essence, the argument seems to be that elitism is good in and of itself. It certainly isn’t. The elites are not just the Founding Fathers, but every aristocracy that has ever trod the face of Planet Earth. To defend elitism as virtuous in itself would be to defend the tyranny of kings throughout the ages and every regime.
Was the Tamany Hall machine in New York good because it was elite? What about the Daley Machine in Chicago? Certainly, the elite can be wise and intelligent, it can also be crass, boorish, and selfish. An elite is no greater than its character and no greater than the values it represents.
Of the Founding Fathers and current politicians, Alex writes:
But the elitism of the Founders is why we’re supposed to admire them. They were intellectuals. Men of distinction. men of both word and action. Men who, on the whole, were both virtuous and slayers of established dogma. Pick up The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin — or a copy of Poor Richard’s Almanack, even. Even making adjustments for the archaic writing, can you imagine Sarah Palin writing such a tome? Of course you can’t. Not even she can. That’s why she hired a ghostwriter.
No, I can’t imagine Sarah Palin writing as well as Benjamin Franklin, and I can’t imagine George Will or Rudy Giuliani doing it either. There is no analog to compare Franklin. No comparison will come off favorably, or anything less than abysmal for the person who is being compared. So thus, the thrust of the piece was to compare people to the founders without actually bringing out someone who was worthy to even shine Ben Franklin’s shoes.
The worst comparsion, one can make in defense of today’s party elite is to the Founding Fathers as today’s elites are a bunch of shallow, oversexed, unprincipled midgets whose letters and learning are being used to no end but the unwitting destruction of the work of giants.
The great wisdom of the Founders fills volumes. The great wisdom of today’s elites could be copied on to a matchbook.
In 18 point font.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:08 am
I putting this on my Twitter and FB.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:18 am
You can’t imagine George Will doing it?
Really?
I think Will is, quite frankly, an amazing writer, whatever you think of his politics.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:19 am
BTW, I will reply to this tomorrow; I’m tired.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:21 am
#2:
George Will is good, but he’s no Ben Franklin. It’s like comparing Eddie Murray to Babe Ruth.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/murraed02.shtml
June 30th, 2009 at 12:32 am
Alex, I am interested to read your thoughts on te brave men and women who saved Honduras from becoming a socialist dictatorship.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:54 am
It’s rather disgusting when an alleged defender of liberty, Adam Graham, equates the Founding Fathers with tyrants, when the unique achievement of the Founding Fathers was precisely to liberate mankind from the tyrants.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:54 am
This is the type of reason I don’t believe conservatives are real defenders of freedom, at all. You reveal your true colors.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:10 am
It was Mr. Knepper who declared the Founders good because they are elites and tried to wrap them around today’s elites. My point was that not all elites are good.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:20 am
Your fixation on “elites” is telling and equally disgusting.
For someone to go through life hating those who value the highest in education and erudition is anti-human.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:21 am
How the hell did the conservative movement get handed over from William F. Buckley to rednecks who worship ignorance?
June 30th, 2009 at 2:16 am
Notice that he doesn’t have any actual, specific critiques of these nebulous “elites” other than a few off-hand insults. The reason is that he can’t identify who these “elites” are; it’s a malleable definition that can be stretched to cover whoever is the villain of the day. The fact that he cites Tammany and Daley as examples shows his incredible confusion on this point – although elite in some ways (wealth, influence), such political bosses maintained power by identifying directly with relatively low-income, uneducated, an immigrant communities. While the constituencies might be different, the Tammany system is really not all that different from current right-wing talk radio, wherein a very wealthy few non-office-holders set the (populist) narrative for voters and the rules by which their party’s elected officials may function. Who are the “elites” in the GOP if not Limbaugh, Hannity, et al.? The uncomfortable reality is that the unnamed elites of the conservative movement and GOP are a bunch of pseudo-populist dim bulbs, and people like Adam Graham have to invent their own idea of elitist influence in the party in order to keep the populist momentum going.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:13 am
Have to agree with Alex here. And I don’t think Alex was arguing for elitism as much as he is arguing for excellence. There is a difference although I certainly wouldn’t expect Adam to go the honest route and look at what Alex is actually saying.
June 30th, 2009 at 6:31 am
2. As a writer, George Will is a peacock. Other than a show-off’s Latinate vocabulary, he has no grasp whatsoever of the subtleties of English language and style.
Mentioning any of these people — Palin, Romney, Will, or Giuliani — in the same breath as Ben Franklin or any of the Founding Fathers perpetrates intellectual fraud. For starters, not a one of them has had an original thought in his or her life. For another, they’re all lightweights.
The Republican party’s greatest long-term problem is that it has become a haven for anti-intellectuals who have a significant voice in its positioning. I am NOT saying that all Republicans are anti-intellectual. I am saying that a significant number of them are flat-earthers and that this is damaging. Some of you will deny that this is the case. Well, it’s still the perception, and it’s one that trotting Bobby Jindal out as the official response to Barack Obama won’t alleviate.
I mean, look at the list on the side. It’s so shallow a bench that Mark Sanford’s and Jon Huntsman’s pictures are still there:
Barbour — Old Southern white guy
Bush — If there’s a brand held in less esteem than the Republican one, it’s the Bush family’s
Crist — perceived moderate; will never be nominated
Huckabee — flat-earther
Gingrich — the most polarizing figure in American politics
Huntsman — not a candidate
Jindal — joke #1
Johnson — who?
Palin — joke #2 and another flat-earther
Petraeus — has he ever said that he’s a Republican?
Pawlenty — rhymes with nonenitity
Romney — no convictions whatsoever
Sanford — not a candidate
Thune — who?
Of the 14 people here, half are southerners and the rest are from such states of national prominence as Alaska and South Dakota.
June 30th, 2009 at 7:24 am
#12:
Glad you know what Alex is talking about far better than Alex does.
June 30th, 2009 at 8:23 am
14, stop talking to yourself. This should be a dialogue, not a monologue. Mcon was very astute in his analysis. It’s unfortunate that you are too dishonest to address the real points that Alex was making instead of twisting his words, like you usually do.
Alex was not in favor elitism. He was using the term because of you and others here who derogate anyone in the party who isn’t a dim wit populist. You throw the word elitist around as a pejorative like many others on the left throw around the term racist.
June 30th, 2009 at 8:34 am
#6 Metro, I find it very interesting (though not surprising) that, while you tout elitism (which you take to be synonymous with intellectualism, which it isn’t), you are completely incapable of actually reading and understanding arguments beyond your instinctual biases. Take this comment by you, for instance:
“It’s rather disgusting when an alleged defender of liberty, Adam Graham, equates the Founding Fathers with tyrants, when the unique achievement of the Founding Fathers was precisely to liberate mankind from the tyrants.”
You directly claim that Adam put the Founding Fathers (great men who risked all to free their country) on the same level as tyrannical regimes of the past. Now, what exactly did Adam say?
“In essence, the argument seems to be that elitism is good in and of itself. It certainly isn’t. The elites are not just the Founding Fathers, but every aristocracy that has ever trod the face of Planet Earth. To defend elitism as virtuous in itself would be to defend the tyranny of kings throughout the ages and every regime.”
Very clearly, Adam is claiming that the Founding Fathers were elites, but so were many other regimes. His claim is, if one is to define elitism, in and of itself, as good, then one is equating the Founding Fathers to tyrant regimes of the past and present. He doesn’t think that’s fair, which is why he’s posting on the topic in the irst place!
In short, he’s drawing a definitive distinction between the two, and in fact is objecting to lumping them together by a blanket defense of elitism. A cursory reading of this should have made that crystal clear.
June 30th, 2009 at 8:43 am
I was going to write a rebutal to #6, but Richard makes the point better than I could in #16.
As for Adam’s supposed fixation on “elites,” this is a response to Alex’s FPP, which was a defense of elitism. So I assume, Metor, you are equally outraged by Alex’s “fixation” on elites?
In truth, Adam is making a defense of GOOD elites, by contrasting them with BAD elites. He pays proper homage to the intellect and grace of Franklin while drawing a distinction between him and the sorts of elites that are supercilious, idle, dilletants (sp).
June 30th, 2009 at 8:49 am
Dan,
“stop talking to yourself. This should be a dialogue, not a monologue….It’s unfortunate that you are too dishonest to address the real points…. instead of twisting his words, like you usually do…. He was using the term because of you and others here who derogate anyone in the party who isn’t a dim wit populist.”
I think if you ponder the above quote, you will detect some hypocrisy in that post.
You made certain to emphasize that Alex was NOT defending “elitism.” Yet, you disparage Adam for using it as a slur. If there is nothing wrong with elitism, and you insist that it should not carry the negative connotation it does, why do you take care to point out that “elitism” is not what Alex was defending?
June 30th, 2009 at 9:23 am
18 MWS, I did not insist elitism should not have a negative connotation. Of course it does and it did in common English usage long before there was a Race42008.
I was responding to Graham who was responding to Mcon in 12. Mcon said “I don’t think Alex was arguing for elitism as much as he is arguing for excellence.”
As I stated in my post in 15, Mcon was astute here. He has a correct reading of what Alex was trying to convey in his original FPP on Franklin. Here is a quote from the last paragraph of Alex’ original FPP, “Populism is killing excellence.”
Graham and others here derogate party members who are educated and accomplished, but who aren’t populists, as being elitists. Graham and company are threatened by excellence, but realize that it would be a poor argument to attack excellence and accomplishment. So he must relabel accomplished people with a term that he can attack without making himself look like a neanderthal. So he cunningly uses the pejorative term elitist. It’s ok to attack elitists, after all they are jerks. The trouble is, he is being dishonest here. It is really their success that he resents. Hatred of success is the fuel that fires populism.
To address Graham’s irrational resentment of success and excellence Alex has to use the terms that Graham uses to lay a foundation that Graham can’t just run away from as he tries to “clarify” his use of the term elitist. Then Alex goes on to draw out the real heart of the matter, excellence.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Words and Phrases to avoid:
“Elites”
“RINOs”
“True Conservatives”
Why? Because they have no precise meaning. Because they mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:35 am
#16/17, Nobody who read Alex’s argument would think it was a defense of whomever held power.
It’s you folks who invented the fixation on elites, thereby smearing the great ones, in part by lumping them in with the bad ones.
It took more than a mere misunderstanding to drive some of us from this party.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:36 am
marK,
“Words and Phrases to avoid: Why? Because they have no precise meaning. Because they mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean.”
For your sake marK, just because I like you, I will give you the true, objective meanings (take notes):
Elite- Someone richer than me. Alternatively, a Navy Seal.
RINOs- Heretics who deviate from party orthodoxy on the wrong issues. Many of them are effeminate.
True Conservatives- My fan club.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:41 am
“It’s you folks who invented the fixation on elites”
Naw. There’s the Waldensians, the Jacobins, the Roundheads, the Black Hand, etc….
All of those guys were around long before we folks.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:08 am
“RINOs- Heretics who deviate from party orthodoxy on the wrong issues. Many of them are effeminate.”
Is there any evidence that Michael Jackson was a registered Republican?
June 30th, 2009 at 10:31 am
#21 Metro, you are all over the place, and STILL showing no inclination to actually debate the SUBSTANCE of Adam;s comments, instead relying on the straw man construct you’ve made it out to be, when a simple reading clearly shows a different meaning. I have no doubt that you are an intelligent, hard-working entrepreneur who is where he is based on his merits, but your obsessive imposition of divisiveness where it doesn’t need to be is a problem.
Take a look at your phraseology: “You folks” is the very definition of divisiveness, dividing “us” and “you.” That you have the temerity to accuse others of what you practice is, well, pretty consistent with human nature, so I’m not going to fault you too much for that, I’ll just point it out.
As for straw men, you attacked Adam for “lumping the Founding Fathers with tyrants.” That’s been demonstrated to be false, as he’s clearly drawing a distinction between them. In response to the facts, you then start talking about what Alex wrote, which is changing the topic. Adam’s topic is that being “elite” (which you likely still associate as being synonymous with intellectual, but they are NOT the same), in and of itself, isn’t “good.”
I think your real issue is that you perceive this as an attack on accomplishment (which ALSO is not synonymouse with elite, btw). It isn’t, and no sane reading of it says that. You are hunting for code phrases and seeking to impose a meaning on it that isn’t there, and THAT is being divisive. I am sorry your obsession on this is keeping you from an objective reading, and causing you to attack something that isn’t there.
June 30th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
These are dumb arguments.
Wise people come from all walks of life. As do idiots.