 |
He doesn't read the papers for the same reason I don't: Fairy tales such as this article. |
Posted on 06/16/2004 5:13:02 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
Bitter at the Top
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: June 15, 2004
It's been said that every society has two aristocracies. The members of the aristocracy of mind produce ideas, and pass along knowledge. The members of the aristocracy of money produce products and manage organizations. In our society these two groups happen to be engaged in a bitter conflict about everything from S.U.V.'s to presidents. You can't understand the current bitter political polarization without appreciating how it is inflamed or even driven by the civil war within the educated class.
The percentage of voters with college degrees has doubled in the past 30 years. As the educated class has grown, it has segmented. The economy has produced a large class of affluent knowledge workers — teachers, lawyers, architects, academics, journalists, therapists, decorators and so on — who live and vote differently than their equally well-educated but more business-oriented peers.
Political scientists now find it useful to distinguish between professionals and managers. Professionals, mostly these knowledge workers, tend to vote for Democrats. Over the last four presidential elections professionals have supported the Democratic candidate by an average of 52 percent to 40, according to Ruy Teixeira and John Judis, authors of "The Emerging Democratic Majority."
Managers, who tend to work for corporations, brokerage houses, real estate firms and banks, tend to vote Republican. Thanks to their numbers, George Bush still won the overall college-educated vote.
This year the Democrats will nominate the perfect embodiment of an educated-class professional. John Kerry graduated from law school and plays classical guitar. President Bush, however, went to business school and drives a pickup around his ranch. So we can watch the conflict between these two rival elites play itself out in almost crystalline form.
This educated-class rivalry has muddied the role of economics in shaping the political landscape. Republicans still have an advantage the higher you go up the income scale, but the correlation between income and voting patterns is weaker. There is, for example, this large class of affluent professionals who are solidly Democratic. DataQuick Information Systems recently put out a list of 100 ZIP code areas where the median home price was above $500,000. By my count, at least 90 of these places — from the Upper West Side to Santa Monica — elect liberal Democrats.
Instead, the contest between these elite groups is often about culture, values and, importantly, leadership skills. What sorts of people should run this country? Which virtues are most important for a leader?
Knowledge-class types are more likely to value leaders who possess what may be called university skills: the ability to read and digest large amounts of information and discuss their way through to a nuanced solution. Democratic administrations tend to value self-expression over self-discipline. Democratic candidates — from Clinton to Kerry — often run late.
Managers are more likely to value leaders whom they see as simple, straight-talking men and women of faith. They prize leaders who are good at managing people, not just ideas. They are more likely to distrust those who seem overly intellectual or narcissistically self-reflective.
Republican administrations tend to be tightly organized and calm, in a corporate sort of way, and place a higher value on loyalty and formality. George Bush says he doesn't read the papers. That's a direct assault on the knowledge class and something no Democrat would say.
Many people bitterly resent it when members of the other group hold power. Members of the knowledge class tend to think that Republican leaders are simple-minded, uncultured morons. Members of the business class tend to think that Democratic leaders are decadent elitists. In other words, along with the policy and cultural differences that divide the groups, there are disagreements on these crucial questions: Which talents should we admire most? Which path to wisdom is right? Which sort of person deserves the highest status?
That's the kind of stuff that really gets people riled up.
This contest between rival elites certainly doesn't explain everything about our politics. But with their overwhelming cultural and financial power, these elite groups do frame the choices the rest of the country must face. If not for the civil war within the educated class, this country would be far less polarized.
It should have been mentioned that Bush always runs on time.
Notice how a liberal picks out their version intelligent people. Acedemics and teachers makes it a bit redundant.
I have never met a journalist with any useful intelligence about anything but parroting what they've heard.
Of course we all know how highly educated decorators are. Theyare at the top of the homosexual food chain.
Yet physicists, chemists, surgeons, and all of the other highly educated people who actually make thsi country work, are left out.
The obvious fallacy is that it doesn't take "mind" to produce products and manage organizations.
But my, don't they have nice hair?
Or that it does not take "ideas" to manage organizations or to produce products for that matter.
I guess within this twisted thought experiment, such technicians are considered Managers.
I love the fact that John Kerry can connect with The People -- because he is the epitome of Educated Professional. Swiss Boarding School. Ivy League. Plays Classical Guitar.The kind of guy you want to have a beer with. President Bush, on the other hand, went to Business School. Worked in the real world. Lives on a ranch. Drives a pickup. Clearly, the man is too effete to understand the problems of the Little Guy.
Well I was once a member of the knowledge class but now I'm in management. However, I have observed Democratic "leaders" along with their useful idiots as the ones who frequently glom onto simple-minded talking point solutions and explanations (eg., it's all about sex, it's all about oil, it's all about greed, etc.). Further I've seen the so-called knowledge class consistenctly over-estimates their own "nuanced" intelligence as a way to avoid analytical thought - which of course does make them somewhat elitist since we poor "morons" just aren't cool enough to "get it".
Or that it does take "mind" to be a lawyer or teacher.
Also, there is something wrong if 90 percent of the wealthiest locations are democratic. What that means is that the wealth of this nation is concentrated mainly in the hands of lawyers. Lawyers don't produce, they steal.
(Disclaimer: That is a generalization and does not refer to you specifically Mr. Lawyer, since you are pure as the driven snow and work tirelessly to defend widows and orphans, all gratis.)
Good for him! I cancelled my subscription (Commercial Appeal)years ago. I immediately gained a half hour to an hour in my day and enjoyed less clutter in the house. I get my news, weather and comics from the internet from my own selected sources and then filter the headline stories through the fine-toothed perspective of FreeRepublic.
Follow the money.
ping
Typical democrat trying to stir up class divisions by categorizing people as either professionals or managers.
Managers, who tend to work for corporations, brokerage houses, real estate firms and banks, tend to vote Republican. Thanks to their numbers, George Bush still won the overall college-educated vote.
Author either doesn't know or, is afraid to come out and define the disciplines tending to be republican. I think he's afraid to and resorts to labelling as managers, those people educated in engineering, mathematics, hard sciences, hard medicine, business, finance and accounting, who tend to work in the private sector, are engaged in the production of goods and private sector services.
Of this list, only architects are true knowledge workers. The rest are service providers.
Engineers, IT, scientists are the true knowledge workers in this country.
They have their titles all wrong. By the way the define "professionals" I would call them the Unproductive Educated. They don't produce anything that adds any value to our society. They simply act as the elite that needs to make sure they guide the unwashed.
This is a clear attempt at trying to validate the unproductive and to create more class warfare, by creating new classes!
You're obviously not of the vaunted aristocracy of the mind (what a pretentious title! -- LOL!!!) or you would understand that academics refers to those who teach at the college and university level, whereas teachers refers to the lesser mortals who teach at the elementary and secondary school levels.
This article is a hoot, but there is a strong element to truth in it, at least to the extent that it describes how the liberal elite perceives itself relative to the rest of the educated class.
Not all affluent places vote liberal: here in Greenwich, Connecticut, the town is solidly Republican. However, except for some old-line working class Democrats and union types, virtually all of the Democrats in town are professionals who have been very successful in law, financial services, media and the like.
Moochers and looters.
"...work for corporations, brokerage houses, real estate firms and banks,..."
Producers and wealth creators that the moochers and looters suck the life out of.
|
He doesn't read the papers for the same reason I don't: Fairy tales such as this article. |
Agreed.
And engineers overwhelmingly vote conservative.
It would be helpful to first separate the professional from the pretentious.
Real Professionals, the engineers, hard scientists and managers tend to vote Republican.
Those with intellectual pretensions, social scientists, public school teachers, artists, writers and others ignorant of mathematics and incapable of analytical reasoning vote democratic.
SO9
Is that the CWII ping list? I was about to ping that list, and then saw your ping.
I think what you are talking about here is what is called the "specialist". They are best described as being narrowly focused on and promoting specific areas of expertise while being unable to integrate that expertise with the broader components of the machine. I think the educational system in this country is organized around this principal.
They should have also mentioned the other type of people that is most likely to vote democrat --- the losers, the welfare types who lay around all day watching soap operas.
Yes, it was the CWII ping list.
Cool, I went ahead and added CWII to the keywords.
I work for at an architectural firm and have worked around architects for the better part of my adult life during and after college. I can tell you they are overwhelmingly conservative. VERY few would even call themselves democrats in name, and fewer would identify themselves are "liberal".
As for the rest of that list of "affluent knowledge workers", they are probably right. Teachers, journalists, and other elitist education wonks are overwhelmingly liberal. Of course, lawyers are too, but they are in a low-life class all by themselves.
Long live the Renaissance man (and woman).
Sorry, but people with labor unions do not count as "professionals."
One side makes their living DOING things and their success can be objectively measured and comparisons easily made.
The other side makes their living TALKING and writing about doing things and their success is based largely on perceptions others have about them.
Well, I read the first paragraph before giving up on it. Perhaps Brooks has simply failed to notice that his "aristocrats of mind" tend to be very wealthy as well.
Exactly. Defining the groups more realistically than this article, in one group you have engineers, craftsmen, applied scientists, architects, doctors (minus psychologists), technicians, etc., and those that manage such activities.
In the other group are artists, academics, lawyers, bureaucrats, marketing & human resources types, consultants, counselors, writers and journalists.
Most people find it hard to connect with a political elite who misses work more than he is there, married a millionaire, has a private jet, has a private yatch, and huge mansions in the US and other countries.
It would be interesting to correlate analytical ability, say in math, with voting patterns.
I know this is going to offend some Freepers who are teachers, but referring to teachers who teach in the public school system as "professional" is a bit of an oxymoron. I'm not aware of any self-regulating vocation that insists on union protection and collective bargaining. In short, if your Unionized, you're not Professional.
It sounds like a war between those capable of learning calculus and those who can't.
Quant jocks vs. Dramats -- sounds like my old school!
How would you classify doctors and the AMA?
Now if Hillarycare ever becomes a reality, you can bet the AMA will rapidly morph into a labor union.
The first group (the producers) is sucking hind teat in this so-called "recovery", and the second group (the leaches) is doing quite nicely.
Need proof? We set a new trade-deficit record every single month.
Right.Mmm hmmm. Sure he does. I'd like him to name just one piece of classical music and play it straight through, solo. I highly doubt it. What on earth does that have to do w/ holding the highest office in the land? I'd also like to know who his teacher was,how many years he took classical lessons and how many different pieces he can actually perform.C'mon John play one during the inevitable "60 Minutes" suck-up piece, O.K.? He's already worse than al gore IMO. LOL
Sorry for the late reply, but I would like to add something to your excellent reply. In Australia, people call the professionals who vote Democrats the Bourgeois Left and they are hard-core ideological leftists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.