|Let's Talk About Inequality, Liberals||Break the Chains, says Joe|
by Christopher Chantrill
August 13, 2012 at 6:00 pm
JUST BEFORE the selection of can-do politician Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) to be Mitt Romneys running mate I finally stumbled over the answer to a question that had been troubling me for years. A liberal friend had asked me, as her conservative go-to guy, why America is anti-intellectual. The answer, I finally realized, was obvious.
But nothing is obvious until you collide with the truth. For me, the collision occurred when I read Victor Davis Hanson on Gore Vidal. Hansen had met Vidal as a kid, because his dad had run a lecture series at Reedley Junior College in California in the Sixties. Reedley was out in the sticks, so the Hansons had the speakers stay over at their farm rather than put them up in a flea-bitten motel in town.
So it followed that, from about age 9 to 15 (e.g., 1962-1968), I listened to every word, at dinner and the next mornings breakfast, from the likes of Ansel Adams... Pearl Buck... Louis Leakey... Bernard Lovell... Rod Serling... Mark Van Doren
and, of course, Gore Vidal in 1964. This lecture series was funded by the local landowners.
The Central Valley farming community was innately conservative. But nonetheless, in the classically liberal spirit of those pre-Vietnam times, the farmers on the board not only funded my dads proposed lecture series, but encouraged him to invite controversial, and often liberal, voices over the objection of the careerist president of the college at that time.
With farmers like that, why do liberals insist that America is anti-intellectual? You can get an up to date flavor of liberal feeling on the matter in Dreaming of a World Without Intellectuals by history professor Russell Jacoby and subsequent comment in The Chronicle of Higher Education. The fuss is about David Gelernters America-Lite, in which Gelernter attacks the post-religious globalist intellectuals who, by and large, cant run their own universities or scholarly fields, but are very sure they can run you. This kind of intellectual lèse-majesté doesnt sit too well with folks like Jacoby. Conservatives like Gelernter, he writes, turn on intellectuals, professors, and presumably the specialized knowledge those experts trade in. Instead of resisting that tendency, conservative intellectuals such as Gelernter encourage it. In their flight from elitism, they end up in a populist swamp peopled by autodidacts and fundamentalists.
Close, Professor Jacoby, but no cigar. Conservatives dream of a world without totalitarian intellectuals. Wed love intellectuals to death, like those California farmers back in the 1960s, if they could agree to limits on their power, and if they could resist the temptation of scarlet lettering conservatives as sexists, racists, and homophobes. We are all in favor of experts and specialized knowledge; we just cant stomach it when specialized experts in politics, e.g., tell us how to organize health care.
Where did liberals go wrong? Walter Russell Mead explains it all in God and Gold. America is built on a balance between religion, reason, and tradition, he argues. Its when the Puritans want a state church in New England, or tradition keeps slaves in the South, or liberals reduce everything to a rational bureaucratic system that America loses its way.
We autodidacts remember from when Mom and Dad took us to Shakespeare in the park and we saw Bottom the weaver wanting to play every part in the play-within-a-play. So we dont like the idea of liberals trying to replace the vibrant culture of competing religions with a single state orthodoxy called Political Correctness. We dont like all social services being reduced to comprehensive and mandatory bureaucratic systems run by liberals, and we dont like the American Way of Life being demolished in favor of liberal-sponsored and liberal-mandated lifestyles.
The problem with intellectuals is that they have pushed the American system off balance, weakening tradition and religion in favor of dominating reason, and Americans dont like it.
Back in 2008 the Democrats ran on a platform that was self-consciously intellectual, and they spent two years busily passing their intellectual solutions to national problems in massively intellectual 2,000 page bills. The undoubted scientific fact of global warming called for a program of targeted green energy research and subsidy. The documented fact of 30 or 40 million without health insurance called for an Affordable Care Act that would bend the cost curve down with administrative committees. The financial excesses of Wall Street buccaneers would be cured with a new layer of regulation in the Dodd-Frank Act.
But are the Democrats defending their intellectual achievements with intellectual arguments? Of course. They are defending their record with the intellectual argument that Romney is an uncaring beast and Ryan wants to tip grannie over a cliff. Vice-presidential pick Paul Ryan gives a speech on his Catholic conservatism at Georgetown University and was attacked by liberal profs at Georgetown before his speech.
It comes down to this: Americans are anti-intellectual because the intellectuals are anti-American.
Buy his Road to the Middle Class.
[W]hen I asked a liberal longtime editor I know with a mainstream [publishing] house for a candid, shorthand version of the assumptions she and her colleagues make about conservatives, she didn't hesitate. Racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-choice fascists, she offered, smiling but meaning it.
Harry Stein, I Can't Believe I'm Sitting Next to a Republican
Families helped each other putting up homes and barns. Together, they built churches, schools, and common civic buildings. They collaborated to build roads and bridges. They took pride in being free persons, independent, and self-reliant; but the texture of their lives was cooperative and fraternal.
Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism
[To make] of each individual member of the army a soldier who, in character, capability, and knowledge, is self-reliant, self-confident, dedicated, and joyful in taking responsibility [verantwortungsfreudig] as a man and a soldier. — Gen. Hans von Seeckt
MacGregor Knox, Williamson Murray, ed., The dynamics of military revolution, 1300-2050
For [the left] there is only the state and the individual, nothing in between. No family to rely on, no friend to depend on, no community to call on. No neighbourhood to grow in, no faith to share in, no charities to work in. No-one but the Minister, nowhere but Whitehall, no such thing as society - just them, and their laws, and their rules, and their arrogance.
David Cameron, Conference Speech 2008
Imagining that all order is the result of design, socialists
conclude that order must be improvable by better design of some superior mind.
F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit
[Every] sacrifice is an act of impurity that pays for a prior act of greater impurity... without its participants having to suffer the full consequences incurred by its predecessor. The punishment is commuted in a process that strangely combines and finesses the deep contradiction between justice and mercy.
Frederick Turner, Beauty: The Value of Values
[The Axial Age] highlights the conception of a responsible self... [that] promise[s] man for the first time that he can understand the fundamental structure of reality and through salvation participate actively in it.
Robert N Bellah, "Religious Evolution", American Sociological Review, Vol. 29, No. 3.
But the only religions that have survived are those which support property and the family.
Thus the outlook for communism, which is both anti-property and anti-family, (and also anti-religion), is not promising.
F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit
[T]he way to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,
Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop
discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
Roberts, C.J., Parents Involved in Community Schools vs. Seattle School District
A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is merely relative, is asking you not to believe him. So dont.
Roger Scruton, Modern Philosophy
Paul Dirac: When I was talking with Lemaître about [the expanding universe] and feeling stimulated
by the grandeur of the picture that he has given us, I told him that
I thought cosmology was the branch of science that lies closest to religion.
However [Georges] Lemaître [Catholic priest, physicist, and
inventor of the Big Bang Theory] did not agree with me. After thinking it over he
suggested psychology as lying closest to religion.
John Farrell, The Creation Myth
Within Pentecostalism the injurious hierarchies of the wider world are abrogated and replaced by a single hierarchy of faith, grace, and the empowerments of the spirit... where groups gather on rafts to take them through the turbulence of the great journey from extensive rural networks to the mega-city and the nuclear family...
David Martin, On Secularization