As far as I’m concerned, the state is responsible for the death of virtuous elitism: meritocracy, the pursuit of excellence, productive work and achievement. Once the state instituted its system of education, the hierarchy of what constituted an “education” was put into place, and the self-made, self-educated men of old were utterly forgotten as exemplars of greatness.
So when Adam Graham makes his argument that today’s “party elites” fixate on “formal education,” I must admit I’m rather confused. I have a strong distaste for formal education. I think it’s largely a hamster-wheel-style charade that prevents real education — the kind that takes place in libraries and living rooms (and now on computers) — from being able to actively take place. I don’t want anyone to ever mistake my education to have come from a university. It is coming from books. I’m at a university primarily to “play the game.” My educational experience thus far has been rather lackluster.
So why this dissonance? Could it be because my argument actually has nothing to do with formal education — and everything to do with the pursuit of excellence?
Adam asserts that my argument falls flat because I have not put forward anyone in this era who compares even somewhat favorably next to Benjamin Franklin. Rudy Giuliani, my preferred candidate, he says, hardly emulates Franklin, either. And on this count, he’s somewhat right. I could fill volumes with the aspects of Rudy Giuliani I dislike. But for all of his flaws, there’s so much to love about him, and he’s accomplished many great things in his life. He comes far closer to emulating the ideals of Franklin than someone like Sarah Palin does.
It isn’t so much that Palin comes off unfavorably when compared to Franklin. It’s that Palin seems to have no interest in becoming like Franklin; she knowingly and consciously lives a life diametrically opposed to the ideals of the man — and then glorifies it as an ideal. She celebrates Joe Six-Pack, not Ben Franklin. She celebrates the hockey mom, not the political-theorist-investor-scientist-diplomat.
Quite obviously, I was not defending ‘elitism’ defined as ‘whoever’s in charge’ — a facetious strawman argument. Anyone who has gone over my essays with even the breeziest intentions can discern that what I celebrate is not power — an ugly concept — but excellence. We should strive to nominate candidates who come as close as possible to that ideal.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Knepper,
I’ll try to get up a post one of these days to Kavon that talks about the distinction between stylistic and substantive populism. Stylistic populism is a political technique that is not intended to diminish excellence but rather to win elections. Substantive populism is what truly diminishes the desire and incentive to pursue excellence. You cannot prevent substantive populism without winning elections. From my vantage point, it seems that you just have a disagreement with others as to the degree to which stylistic populism can be successful for the purposes of winning elections.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
It quite clearly is not just to win elections if we put someone like Palin on the top of the ticket.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Alex, I will repeat something I’ve said many times before: I don’t think we know the real Sarah Palin based on the last campaign, because I think she mostly did as she was told by his advisors and ran the way Sen McCain wanted her to run (just another in a long string of poor decisions his campaign made). I’ll stay neutral on her until she decides to run on her own, though her poor interviews put a burden on her to improve that many others will not have.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Why the non-sequitur about Palin?
From my vantage point, it seems that you spend more time complaining about stylistic populism than substantive populism.
Is the brand of stylistic populism that Sarah Palin allegedly practices that different from your proposal that we adopt different wording for certain arguments? You put up a post months ago talking about what words we should use to promote whatever our healthcare plans are…the Frank Luntz tactics.
To me, the Luntz tactics that you seem to support are really not that all different from the brand of stylistic populism that you do not support since what Luntz is proposing through the use of words is to “connect” to the “average voter.” “Connecting” sounds a whole lot like stylistic populism to me.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Tommy Boy pretty much nails Alex’s incoherence on this in #1. I have to admit that I find Alex’s stridency on supporting candidates who he believes to be our “intellectual betters” rather arrogant and somewhat humorous coming from a college sophomore.
Harry Truman was a failed haberdasher and farmer, and was anything but one of America’s elite. He turned out to be one of the greatest Presidents this country ever had and probably one of the ten finest Americans who ever lived.
Ronald Reagan was never considered “elite” in the sense that Alex uses. He was widely viewed as a B-Movie actor and radio comentator who played a politician. History, of course, shows him to be one of our finest Presidents. He is also one of the five greatest Americans who ever drew breath in my humble opinion.
I can’t help but chuckle at what Alex would have written about these fine men had he lived during their times. It is easy to imagine Alex firing off angry missives about nominating a B-Movie actor (with pictures of Reagan and chimp attached) as he accepted the GOP nomination in 1980.
In my three decades on this planet I have been a newspaper delivery boy, a busboy, a clerk in a drug store, a kosher butcher’s assistant, a pizza delivery boy, an ESL Tutor, a Wedding DJ, a Security Guard (among others.) I have been a dues paying member of a union. Should this “non-elite” past disqualify me from public service? Should I be disqualified from public service because my Bachelor’s degree cost less than $120,000?
Or does my lifetime of experience spent in the real world give me the knowledge and experience that would lead me to make better decisions as President than University of Chicago graduate who has never done any of these things?
Alex, I think, would argue that it does not.
I argue that I have a better insight into how the world actually works; and that I am better equipped to understand the problems that face Plumbers, Carpenters, Electricians, Couriers, etc…, than someone who has never held a real job in their life.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Define excellence. What is one trying to excel at?
The pursuit of knowledge without any application to the human condition is vanity.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
“Harry Truman was a failed haberdasher and farmer, and was anything but one of America’s elite. He turned out to be one of the greatest Presidents this country ever had and probably one of the ten finest Americans who ever lived.”
Wow. I’m not sure if I’d go that far, and I grew up in Harry Truman’s hometown and attended Truman High School.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Wiseguy:“The pursuit of knowledge without any application to the human condition is vanity.”
That sounds suspiciously like those people who cry in school that there is no reason to learn the material because they will never use it in real life.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
I don’t think Alex would have dismissed Reagan. Reagan is the very kind of person he is talking about – a man who earned his education by study and reflection.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
I was just a little boy during Truman, but my dad, grandparents, aunts and uncles, and everybody on my dad’s side were Democrat, and I never heard them talk about Truman being that good. In fact, today is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone say that Kavon. You may be right, but I don’t think its a widely held view.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Education is a whole nother topic. But government schools should be an absolute last resort, if they exist at all. Schooling should be family or community based, private, and excellent. Government and excellence can never be found in the same sentence in an intellectually honest way.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
The Ridings/McIver survey of 700+ university professors and historians ranked Truman as 7th greatest president of all time.
A Federalist Society/Wall Street Journal survey of 132 university professors (balanced for ideology) also ranked Truman 7th among all presidents.
Those are just two examples. However, there have been numerous reassessments of Truman’s presidency over the past 20 years and the general consensus is now to rank him as a “Near Great” President.
In my own estimation, Truman ranks as one of the “Great Presidents.” My signed copy of his memoirs is one of my most prized possessions.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
You know more about it than I do Kavon.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Liz, you rock!
Truman was dismissed by the same intelligencia Alex promotes. The large media, University intellectuals, east coast insiders, etc…
Many people look back and realize that Truman’s humble lifestyle and outlook on life made him the ultimate pragmatist. For many in the elite society, it is nearly impossible to govern pragmatically.
Sometimes our leaders need to stop thinking so much and make decisions based on practicality.
June 30th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Alex what I wrote was not written to state that your point was on education.
My point is that the idea of arguing that an 18th Century man could not be elected in the 21st Century is an absurd argument. Had they lived in our area they would be adapted to today’s politics.
June 30th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
[...] word of the day is “excellence” from my esteemed colleague. Alex lays down a serious charge against Sarah Palin: It isn’t [...]
June 30th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Tommy Boy pretty much nails Alex’s incoherence on this in #1. I have to admit that I find Alex’s stridency on supporting candidates who he believes to be our “intellectual betters” rather arrogant and somewhat humorous coming from a college sophomore.
Why is it humorous coming from a college sophomore? Am I supposed to support morons because my life experience isn’t much? Am I supposed to vote my identity? Seriously?
Harry Truman was a failed haberdasher and farmer, and was anything but one of America’s elite. He turned out to be one of the greatest Presidents this country ever had and probably one of the ten finest Americans who ever lived.
Certainly. Elitism is a state of mind and the pursuit of excellence.
Ronald Reagan was never considered “elite” in the sense that Alex uses. He was widely viewed as a B-Movie actor and radio comentator who played a politician. History, of course, shows him to be one of our finest Presidents. He is also one of the five greatest Americans who ever drew breath in my humble opinion.
Widely viewed by whom? He had moral clarity and was dedicated to the pursuit of American ideas and ideals. He united Americans behind our greatest ideals. He respected excellence, and he eventually rose to it.
I can’t help but chuckle at what Alex would have written about these fine men had he lived during their times. It is easy to imagine Alex firing off angry missives about nominating a B-Movie actor (with pictures of Reagan and chimp attached) as he accepted the GOP nomination in 1980.
I can’t rebut what I never did.
In my three decades on this planet I have been a newspaper delivery boy, a busboy, a clerk in a drug store, a kosher butcher’s assistant, a pizza delivery boy, an ESL Tutor, a Wedding DJ, a Security Guard (among others.) I have been a dues paying member of a union. Should this “non-elite” past disqualify me from public service? Should I be disqualified from public service because my Bachelor’s degree cost less than $120,000?
Did you even read what I wrote? IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EDUCATION.
Jesus…
Or does my lifetime of experience spent in the real world give me the knowledge and experience that would lead me to make better decisions as President than University of Chicago graduate who has never done any of these things?
WHO THE HELL IS SAYING ELITISM IS ABOUT UNIVERSITY?
Alex, I think, would argue that it does not.
If you think that, then you didn’t read my post.
I argue that I have a better insight into how the world actually works; and that I am better equipped to understand the problems that face Plumbers, Carpenters, Electricians, Couriers, etc…, than someone who has never held a real job in their life.
Why do you people think that being a professor or a senator isn’t a “real job”?