An Elitist Explains What's Wrong With Us.
http://opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010014
This is a link to a Wall Street Journal piece by a Harvard Professor, Harvey C. Mansfield. He got some media criticism for it by left wing media who take the argument he makes as an endorsement for President Bush paying no attention to the “Rule of Law.”
I don’t take that as his argument, necessarily, from having read him.
I do take him as an elitist.
“One should not believe that a strong executive is needed only for quick action in emergencies, ....A strong executive is requisite to oppose majority faction produced by temporary delusions in the people....[A] strong executive must exercise his strength especially against the people, not showing them ‘servile pliancy.’ ....
‘Responsibility’ is not mere responsiveness to the people; it means doing what the people would want done if they were apprised of the circumstances. Responsibility requires ‘personal firmness’ in one's character, and it enables those who love fame—‘the ruling passion of the noblest minds’--to undertake ‘extensive and arduous enterprises.’”
(Emphasis added.)
Well, yeah. If we have an executive who, given our delusions acts against us, when we, were we told what was going on and had the capacity to understand that the executive, loving fame, was acting selflessly to protect us from ourselves, and it turned out all the time that the executive was right, then an elitist view of the beneficent executive might be a good thing.
Executives, be they a Napoleon, a Hitler, a Sadaam (I’m not including GWB, that’s for you to decide) they often say that the people don’t know what’s good for them, don’t tell them what’s going on and then act against them, selflessly, they would argue to achieve a greater good as they see it.
This guy writes really good; but, I’ll stick with the Rule of Law for now, until we find the next Messiah, and make him or her prove that that’s an accurate description.
9 comments:
This guy writes insanity. Maybe in the world of an educated elite and the "great unwashed" a ruler could claim to have exclusive information and an unpopular purpose that might provide great benefit. That world is long over.
The role of today's executive is to, by providing information and "leadership" (great leaders actually inspire people), convince the populace to follow their direction in great and arduous enterprises.
Our current president has led by setting up overblown threats, hyping the resultant fear, and trying to be the white knight. Now we know his real talent was as the jester - no knight at all.
But I ask you, how could a true elitist ever see anything in George W. Bush?
Life Hiker,
Your last point is the truest; and, I think makes my point, not set out in the post, that the good Professor is academically jaw- flapping. When saying he writes good, I don't mean in a logical sense. I mean the essay is elegant. I guess we shouldn't trust elegant.
There's much more wrong in the essay. I just picked the quickest, most egregious example.
I would say there is one exception to your point: bill of right kind of issues. I don't like the idea of a majority determining certain things that are best for individuals. If a strong leader is someone who protects those rights for individuals, cheers.
Beyond that, I'm a populist and feel like a government ought to be a tool for exercising the will of the people, not the elites.
Ron,
Your point is well taken; and, I kind of thought about it when I was writing the post because Mansfield kept using the word "majority."
I don't think though he was talking about the structural issue of majority tyrany over minority views. Rather, he looks at citizens, as a whole as a "great unwashed" that must be protected from themselves. He looks at the "executive" as a kind of "super-majority."
The problem with eliteism is that it knows no boundaries. "Super Majorities" (or megalomaniacs, as I like to think of them) begin to believe that they know what is best for everybody, and not just their constituency.
Too often, it seems, they develop the vision that "everything" is beyond the capacity of "everybody" to comprehend, and they develop a saviour complex.
This is the fatal flaw I saw in the snippet you posted. Fame is not "the ruling passion of the noblest minds." I find that those who seek it mistake self- rewarding attention for true nobility of purpose.
If fame is really "the ruling passion of the noblest minds," then his elite ruling class would be composed of people like Anna Nicole Smith and Paris Hilton.
It would be a more interesting world, but I'm not sure it's be a better one.
I've decided that I should have furthered my education past what I learned in the bushes behind our house....
I'll have to read and research some more.
I'll be taking the summer off, but will be back to catch up later on. Be good Dave, and have a super summer. I look forward to reading your posts when I return.
It's an interesting theory, but with our elections being the circus that they are and with our political parties being run the way they are, we will never get anything more than weak leaders and sociopaths, with the rare fluke slipping through every now and then.
Post a Comment