The Dark Side of Faith

blatham wrote:

george

When time allows, why not open a thread on the book. Anything you find particularly interesting or debatable we can slog about (just let me know the relevant passages and pages).

You frame a question above in a decidedly unproductive manner...to paraphrase, if America is an anti-intellectual locale/culture, then who the heck is not? Canada?

The more productive framing is...in what ways does America manifest this tendency, what might be the historical explanation for this, and what are the important consequences?

If you frame it as something like an arm-wrestling contest comparing America versus some other opponent, I don't think your reading will be well served. Cheerleaders probably don't make good historians.

I envy you the Kennan read. And yes, doesn't Hofstadter write well (and think well) on Dewey.

I will open such a thread, though I haven't yet figured out how to do it succinctly. The piece is very well written and engaging, and the ideas presented a bit complex.

As you know I am disinclined to accept the notion of any persistent differences in the real behavior of different large groups of people, and, when confronted with the suggestion that they exist, look instead for proof or ways to write off apparent differences as mere differences in manifestation.

Hofstadter offers a proposition about America and illustrates it in the context of the Eisenhower Adali Stevenson campaign and the McCarthy hearings - both prominent contemporaneous events in the period just before the book was written. He goes on to trace its origins in a plausable anecdotal way, and later to connect these anecdotes in a theory. However, is the proposition really true? It seems to me this requires some analysis of the behavior of other nations and peoples and an effort to search out the same thing in its behavior. Finally I would wish to look at the unique (or near unique) features of our social and political structures to find both potential causes and even explanations for such behavior as a possibly rational expressions of essential differences, justified by associated benefits and virtues. Instead I find so far the mere postulate that the phenomenon exists, that it is unique to us, and that it necessarily represents a regrettable aberration resulting from our particular history. I am inclined to challenge all of these assumptions.

I recognize that I am exposed to the danger of cheerleader as social analyst, but what can I do about that? It would be equally wrong to start with the precept that Americans certainly are more "anti-intellectual" than other peoples, especially given the degree to which ideas developed and put into practice here in fields ranging from politics to science, economic activity, and art have spread so widely around the world.

Finally, I would like to hear (or read) more about just what are the objective benefits of the labors of "intellectuals" as Hofstadter has narrowly defined them. This is an idea that academics prefer not to question, but one that merits it nonetheless.

I will read on and reflect some more. However the topic remains large and complex. Where to begin. I'll welcome any suggestions you may have regarding how to best start the thread.

0 Replies

george

It is a big subject. But gosh, damned interesting.

To clarify...I am certain that it (anti-intellectualism in the sense used here) is NOT unique to America (and Hofstadter would never make that claim either). But it will manifest uniquely and will have unique consequences here because America's history is unique.

As an parallel example, we might think of how patriotism manifests itself quite differently in different nations, differences which derive from unique histories. Or consider how certain Asian nations, with histories dissimilar from ours, demonstrate different conceptions and behaviors regarding individual rights versus community 'obligations'.

I sympathize with your point about the similarities between human groups. That ought to inform our understanding. But noting differences is equally necessary for understanding because they are as real and significant as that which is similar. How Germany and America are similar is a proper question. How they differ is equally proper.
(edit) How Libya and America differ is surely a proper subject of study, yes? Be careful, george, that you don't allow the cheerleader tendency to steer you towards refusing comparisons in one context, but then insisting on comparisons in another.

On the "objective benefits" question...that can be a tough one too. Many things are not easy to measure. What might one argue are undeniable objective benefits of lifetime marriages, or of teaching literature, or of our quest to reach other planets and moons in the solar system, or our quest to understand the peopling of the New World?

As to a possible thread subject...why not bring forward some thought which, as you read the book, you find exciting and revelatory?

0 Replies

Colin Powell's chief of staff, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, has just given a very important speech.

Quote:

By Edward Alden in Washington
Published: October 20 2005 00:00 | Last updated: October 20 2005 00:19

Vice-President Dick Cheney and a handful of others had hijacked the government's foreign policy apparatus, deciding in secret to carry out policies that had left the US weaker and more isolated in the world, the top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed on Wednesday.

In a scathing attack on the record of President George W. Bush, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Mr Powell until last January, said: "What I saw was a cabal between the vice-president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.

"Now it is paying the consequences of making those decisions in secret, but far more telling to me is America is paying the consequences."

full piece here

For a much fuller portion of the speech transcript, go here (note to finn...see in this speech a reiteration of my point on the necessity for balance of powers)

0 Replies

Quote:

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Mr Powell until last January

Fired, was he?

0 Replies

Very likely he left when Powell's assignment as Secretary of State ended. Powell's opposition to the Cheney-Rumsfeld viewpoints on Iraq is well known. It is noteworthy that it wasn't deep enpugh to compel him to resign in protest. It is also likely that the deputy's views are a good deal more polarized than were those of his former boss. Such disputes are the rule, not the exception in bureaucratic politics. This stuff is an ordinary tempest in an ordinary Washington teapot.

For those who will take the trouble to think and to recall in detail the situation in the Persian Gulf and Middle East Region as it really was before our intervention, it is already evident that we have vastly improved the situation there, both from the perspective of our own security and strategy and from that of the Iraqi people themselves.

A corrupt French government that was in the paid service of Saddam has lost its influence in Europe. The dictator has been removed from the backs of the Iraqi people and new voices of democratic self-determination have been let loose in the Middle East. The process ahead will be troubled and occasionally violent, but almost certainly far less troubled and violent than what would have resulted had the dictator stayed on with Chirac as his paid stooge.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

It is also likely that the deputy's views are a good deal more polarized than were those of his former boss.

No kidding.

The Secretary of Defence and Vice President making decisions without the knowledge of the bureaucracy? How dare they!

Laughing

0 Replies

The little boy and girl, plugging ears...yelling..."LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR A THING LA LA LA"

0 Replies

Don't venture into a thunderstorm with that tin-foil hat on, blatham Smile

0 Replies

Now I am making a serious effort to thoughtfully engage one of Blatham's central perceptions - at least as it relates to these political thread discussions. The exercise takes the form of Richard Hofstadter's 1962 work, "Anti intellectualisdn in American Life". It's a well written piece, a serious work, laced with often complex definitions and arguments. So far I believe there are some very wide omissions in his arguments, omissions that could make the work appealing only to those who already accept the basic proposition of the work or those who are willing to accept it based only on the rather superficial (and transient) context in which he describes it ( the two Eisenhower Administrations). I am also setting aside for the moment the historical facts that have accumulated since the book was wriitten - from an historical perspective the "intellectual" luminaries who accompanied the Democratic Administrations of the '30s, '40s, and '60s, don't shine so well now as they did durinjg their moments in the sun.

However there is also little doubt of the truth of most of the anecdotal information that he puts forward to illustrate his proposition and flesh out his theories on the subject. What seems (so far) lacking is only a broad demonstration of the particular truth of his proposition as it relates to this country and a more convincing statement of the enduring character of what he regards as fundamental and not-easily-changed features of our culture.

All that said, I am trying to be as objective as possible, to avoud mere fault-finding, and look for the meaningful and enduring truths that may lie in his description.

I would wish that Blatham would occasionally return the favor in his reactions to views other than his in these political disputes.

0 Replies

Now I am making a serious effort to thoughtfully engage one of Blatham's central perceptions - at least as it relates to these political thread discussions. The exercise takes the form of Richard Hofstadter's 1962 work, "Anti intellectualisdn in American Life". It's a well written piece, a serious work, laced with often complex definitions and arguments. So far I believe there are some very wide omissions in his arguments, omissions that could make the work appealing only to those who already accept the basic proposition of the work or those who are willing to accept it based only on the rather superficial (and transient) context in which he describes it ( the two Eisenhower Administrations). I am also setting aside for the moment the historical facts that have accumulated since the book was wriitten - from an historical perspective the "intellectual" luminaries who accompanied the Democratic Administrations of the '30s, '40s, and '60s, don't shine so well now as they did durinjg their moments in the sun.

However there is also little doubt of the truth of most of the anecdotal information that he puts forward to illustrate his proposition and flesh out his theories on the subject. What seems (so far) lacking is only a broad demonstration of the particular truth of his proposition as it relates to this country and a more convincing statement of the enduring character of what he regards as fundamental and not-easily-changed features of our culture.

All that said, I am trying to be as objective as possible, to avoud mere fault-finding, and look for the meaningful and enduring truths that may lie in his description.

I would wish that Blatham would occasionally return the favor in his reactions to views other than his in these political disputes.

0 Replies

Now I am making a serious effort to thoughtfully engage one of Blatham's central perceptions - at least as it relates to these political thread discussions. The exercise takes the form of Richard Hofstadter's 1962 work, "Anti intellectualisdn in American Life". It's a well written piece, a serious work, laced with often complex definitions and arguments. So far I believe there are some very wide omissions in his arguments, omissions that could make the work appealing only to those who already accept the basic proposition of the work or those who are willing to accept it based only on the rather superficial (and transient) context in which he describes it ( the two Eisenhower Administrations). I am also setting aside for the moment the historical facts that have accumulated since the book was wriitten - from an historical perspective the "intellectual" luminaries who accompanied the Democratic Administrations of the '30s, '40s, and '60s, don't shine so well now as they did durinjg their moments in the sun.

However there is also little doubt of the truth of most of the anecdotal information that he puts forward to illustrate his proposition and flesh out his theories on the subject. What seems (so far) lacking is only a broad demonstration of the particular truth of his proposition as it relates to this country and a more convincing statement of the enduring character of what he regards as fundamental and not-easily-changed features of our culture.

All that said, I am trying to be as objective as possible, to avoud mere fault-finding, and look for the meaningful and enduring truths that may lie in his description.

I would wish that Blatham would occasionally return the favor in his reactions to views other than his in these political disputes.

0 Replies

Now I am making a serious effort to thoughtfully engage one of Blatham's central perceptions - at least as it relates to these political thread discussions. The exercise takes the form of Richard Hofstadter's 1962 work, "Anti intellectualisdn in American Life". It's a well written piece, a serious work, laced with often complex definitions and arguments. So far I believe there are some very wide omissions in his arguments, omissions that could make the work appealing only to those who already accept the basic proposition of the work or those who are willing to accept it based only on the rather superficial (and transient) context in which he describes it ( the two Eisenhower Administrations). I am also setting aside for the moment the historical facts that have accumulated since the book was wriitten - from an historical perspective the "intellectual" luminaries who accompanied the Democratic Administrations of the '30s, '40s, and '60s, don't shine so well now as they did durinjg their moments in the sun.

However there is also little doubt of the truth of most of the anecdotal information that he puts forward to illustrate his proposition and flesh out his theories on the subject. What seems (so far) lacking is only a broad demonstration of the particular truth of his proposition as it relates to this country and a more convincing statement of the enduring character of what he regards as fundamental and not-easily-changed features of our culture.

All that said, I am trying to be as objective as possible, to avoud mere fault-finding, and look for the meaningful and enduring truths that may lie in his description.

I would wish that Blatham would occasionally return the favor in his reactions to views other than his in these political disputes.

0 Replies

george

I assume your last sentence (in any of its four iterations) refers to my response to your post on Powell's chief of staff...

Quote:

Very likely he left when Powell's assignment as Secretary of State ended. Powell's opposition to the Cheney-Rumsfeld viewpoints on Iraq is well known. It is noteworthy that it wasn't deep enpugh to compel him to resign in protest. It is also likely that the deputy's views are a good deal more polarized than were those of his former boss. Such disputes are the rule, not the exception in bureaucratic politics. This stuff is an ordinary tempest in an ordinary Washington teapot.

In part, my response was directed to miss squat'n'poop who clearly didn't read what Colonel Wilkerson had said in those full rich three minutes between posts. And I confess I'm a little dubious as to your care with the speech (though I thank you for addressing the idiocy of what she bothered herself with).

I posted it here, a quite irrelevant-to-thread matter, as support for an earlier discussion point with finn - the wisdom of balancing powers in a democratic government which Wilkerson refers to in the two particular examples.

But you seek to invalidate or avoid what Wilkerson says through cheap means...
- Powell disagreed but not enough to resign (Wilkerson didn't resign either, of course)
- a guess, perhaps correct, that Wilkerson's viewpoint is more acute than Powell's
- a claim that these internecine disagreements are ubiquitous

Neither of these constitutes an engaged or serious address to Wilkerson's claims and arguments.

0 Replies

Wilkerson doesn't seem to understand how the system works and he's delusional if he thinks the bureacracy makes policy. He's obviously still courting the opinions of France and the UN and the sooner we isolate ourselves from that bunch, the better.

It's the globalists like Soros who are trying to hijack our foreign policy. Dick Cheney, by defying the insider bureaucracy, will be seen as a courageous patriot and just earned my respect ten-fold.

Here's a clue for Wilkerson and the losers who buy into his rants.

It's quite simple: You get elected. You call the shots.

Neither he (nor Powell) was ever elected.

They have no shots.

0 Replies

The lib cabalists--currently referred to as the DC bureauocracy (sp)-- that seep around in cracks during Republican administrations and own town during Democrat ones--expect to be worshipped and lauded.

They, the elitists, the Ivy Leaguers, the snitty know-it-alls, who think they need to run the US because the rest of us are too stupid and shouldn't vote. The Anti-God cabal, currently trying to eradicate Christmas from the English language... Wilkerson is the first one to seep out of the cracks and proclaim the cabal--and repeat their mantra for a microphone:

1. We make the rules.

2. We are pissed because the Bush administration won't let us do that anymore.

3. Waaaah!

0 Replies

Hmmm...speaking of anti-intellectualism......perfect illustrations. That and the thinking by slogan.

0 Replies

It is the perfect mirror image of the old soviet style drivel:

"The running dogs of capitalism" etc.

Life is so deliciously ironic - it is exactly like the nouveau political correctness of anti-political correctness...........

0 Replies

I prefer democracy to oligarchy.

That's not anti-intellectual, it's anti-tyranny.

Not surprised at who supports it, though.

0 Replies

Lol!

Rejoinder by utterly baseless alleged association.

The equivalent to Lucy's answer to every argument in Charlie Brown: "You have a homely face".

And as relevant.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

blatham wrote:
george

When time allows, why not open a thread on the book. Anything you find particularly interesting or debatable we can slog about (just let me know the relevant passages and pages).

You frame a question above in a decidedly unproductive manner...to paraphrase, if America is an anti-intellectual locale/culture, then who the heck is not? Canada?

The more productive framing is...in what ways does America manifest this tendency, what might be the historical explanation for this, and what are the important consequences?

If you frame it as something like an arm-wrestling contest comparing America versus some other opponent, I don't think your reading will be well served. Cheerleaders probably don't make good historians.

I envy you the Kennan read. And yes, doesn't Hofstadter write well (and think well) on Dewey.

I will open such a thread, though I haven't yet figured out how to do it succinctly. The piece is very well written and engaging, and the ideas presented a bit complex.

As you know I am disinclined to accept the notion of any persistent differences in the real behavior of different large groups of people, and, when confronted with the suggestion that they exist, look instead for proof or ways to write off apparent differences as mere differences in manifestation.

Hofstadter offers a proposition about America and illustrates it in the context of the Eisenhower Adali Stevenson campaign and the McCarthy hearings - both prominent contemporaneous events in the period just before the book was written. He goes on to trace its origins in a plausable anecdotal way, and later to connect these anecdotes in a theory. However, is the proposition really true? It seems to me this requires some analysis of the behavior of other nations and peoples and an effort to search out the same thing in its behavior. Finally I would wish to look at the unique (or near unique) features of our social and political structures to find both potential causes and even explanations for such behavior as a possibly rational expressions of essential differences, justified by associated benefits and virtues. Instead I find so far the mere postulate that the phenomenon exists, that it is unique to us, and that it necessarily represents a regrettable aberration resulting from our particular history. I am inclined to challenge all of these assumptions.

I recognize that I am exposed to the danger of cheerleader as social analyst, but what can I do about that? It would be equally wrong to start with the precept that Americans certainly are more "anti-intellectual" than other peoples, especially given the degree to which ideas developed and put into practice here in fields ranging from politics to science, economic activity, and art have spread so widely around the world.

Finally, I would like to hear (or read) more about just what are the objective benefits of the labors of "intellectuals" as Hofstadter has narrowly defined them. This is an idea that academics prefer not to question, but one that merits it nonetheless.

I will read on and reflect some more. However the topic remains large and complex. Where to begin. I'll welcome any suggestions you may have regarding how to best start the thread.

Have you opened such a thread, georgeob?

And is there somewhere the arguments are spelled out on the net, without having to buy the book?

What I DO notice about the US is persistent abuse of intellectuals by the right....I think of Agnew, continuing up to the kind of stuff Lash just posted, which is extremely common as sloganeering on this site and by media outlets like Fox.

This is a trend that is being copied by our right.

I have no way of knowing how common it is in other countries, though I did notice Thatcher using it, as did the Stalinists in the USSR, and Mao in China (remember "May a thousand flowers bloom.")

0 Replies

The Dark Side of Faith

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know