Organic Baby Farm

Growing the World’s Cutest Free-Range Kids… and feeding them nothing but crap.

Thanks for reading. And for writing.

P.S. There are three kinds of people in the world. (I’m not telling.)

I think your point that we need to guard against dividing our nation into two groups, one of which is expendable due to its lack of some virtue, is well taken. And it is true that some people divide the world into elites (expendable) and masses (virtuous). However, I would point out (just for a counterpoint) that I have seen this sort of thinking on both sides, including people who believe those with Southern accents should not be allowed in public discourse on account of their presumed stupidity, people who believe that rural conservatives have no views worth listening to because they have not gone to the right college, people who believe that liberals should drop into their own black hole and the world would be better off without them, and people who believe that bankers (a financial elite, if you will) ought to be impoverished and ruined. I am reminded of Aesop’s fable of the body and its members. In the body politic, all the members are needed.

As the old joke goes, there are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide the world into two kinds of people, and those who don’t. As admirable as it would seem to find oneself in the latter group, any attempt to position oneself there lands one in the former group.

All those things convince us that you are proponents of Federal Government solutions for whatever issues you deem to be problems or, as I call them, Hamiltonians. Can you refute that position? On the other hand, our belief is that state and local governments, being closer to the people affected, are more likely to do what the people want. Yes, the people at the state level may not want to engage in those issues mentioned previously and may be condemned as “ignorant” or not knowing “what’s good for them” by liberals. Should the “superior” beliefs of liberals at the federal level be forced on the states? It is the conservative view that they shouldn’t.

The great awakening of the silent majority brought about by the onslaught of passing bills that our representatives have not read, not seeking counsel of the minority party, proposing more taxes (cap and trade, healthcare), and proposing more government interference in the lives of citizens (healthcare), has resulted in the Tea Party movement. The usual suspects (MSM, liberal politicians) rushed to condemn these people as unruly, ill-informed, astro-turfers, and racists. It is a commentary on how out of touch the liberals are when they don’t/won’t try to understand that a majority of people in this country are not Hamiltonians. It is also a sign of how out of touch the Washington DC “in crowd” are that people like George Will would call this a populist movement. It isn’t a populist movement because it has no leader and is not a reaction against anything except overreaching federal spending, increased government regulation, and growth of government. It is a Jeffersonian movement that demands the governmment remember its job is to serve the people and not the other way around.

The charges of ignorance against Sarah Palin are just another marker of the Hamiltonian stance that average citizens cannot be trusted to make good decisions about their lives. Palin does not show gravitas – that outward appearance of wisdom and worldly knowledge that so many find indispensable in evaluating political leaders. What she does show is “street smarts” – the ability to quickly size up new situations and make pragmatic decisions. Is Palin smart enough to be president? IMO, no one is smart enough to be president. That’s why we provide our presidents with cabinets and advisors – to fill in the weak spots in their knowledge. What a president does need is the ability to examine alternatives and make good decisions. Who gets more experience doing that? An academic or a businessman? An academic or a small town mayor? An academic or a state governor? I know what my answer is. I suspect yours would be quite different. And that’s why we believe we have you folks pegged.

The article is interesting on several levels, and I think germane to your post at three points. I’d invite you to read it and think about what you just wrote VERY CAREFULLY.

This has historically been mostly true “It is the pride of American history, culture, and society that more than any nation ever, we live in a meritocracy.”

This is not true, on the whole “What Shrink and other conservatives object to is not the elite nature of these elites – were it not them, it would be others – but a set of modern and liberal beliefs that over recent decades they consider to have taken hold as the prevailing cultural zeitgeist.”

No. It’s the perception that our leadership IS MOSTLY FAILING, and there is a widespread perception that when confronted with their failures, the leadership responds with something like “but we’re very smart” instead of trying to figure out how to do something that works better.

Presumably you don’t hang out in conservative circles. They have been bewailing the failure of “conservative” leaders for over six years.

Also, the idea that anti-intellectualism is a necessary consequence of observing that our leadership is incompetent is just plain stupid.

Americans are on the whole a pragmatic, not-very-ideological lot. The truth is most of our leadership has failed, and is failing, and is apparently too insular on the whole to recognize and correct its own failures. You discuss language. The people on SW’s blog are probably looking more at data and results, and certainly the general population is looking at results. They see anything but a true elite in charge.

What data can you present to show that our leadership (not just political) is mostly competent? I await your answer with some interest. By definition, a meritocracy should be competent.

Isn’t it rich that conservativism finds use for the labels of “elite” and “masses” ?

And rich that socialists now appeal to an enlightened aristocracy?

No matter. What follows is for your own edification:

As a conservative intellectual, I heartily embrace “anti-intellectualism” — for intellectuals, except in idle scholarly settings, are a curse. They inevitable become “court intellectuals”, propagandist for factions seeking money and power through the State.

Another rich irony: come the revolution, I’ll personally frog-march every liberal arts professor to the countryside for re-education