Posted on 01/16/2005 4:16:58 PM PST by shrinkermd
“WHEN IDEOLOGY IS YOUR GUIDE, YOU ARE BOUND TO GET LOST.” This is how the author begins and underpins this book. Daniel Flynn believes ideology determines your reaction to issues, ideas and people. Once you have accepted an ideology even smart people may say and do stupid things.
Of course in conservative circles demonizing intellectuals is a great tradition. Paul Johnson’s Intellectuals pilloried left wing intellectuals. The danger in pursuing such a strategy is that it may become simple pandering to anti-intellectual bias. Alternatively, arguing against ideology simply prepares an argument for the left. After all, Martin Luther made faith the first step in accepting Christ and such an acceptance does result in a series of beliefs that some may see as “moronic.” While perhaps a small point, it might have been better if the author had focused on the failure of “elites” rather than “intellectuals” as the target of his scorn.
Other than this small point it is hard to criticize this book. It is superbly written by a master wordsmith; it reads easily and the Flesch-Kincaid grade level must center around 12. Besides reading well, the book is endnoted like a Ph.D. dissertation. The index is quite complete and reader friendly, but the chapter headings trade clarity for catchy, journalistic themes such as “The True Believer” and “History Itself as a Political Act.”
The author begins by fleshing out that faith and ideology lead to moronic beliefs. He quotes Koestler among others postulating that faith is not acquired by reason but may be defended by reason. He then points out that most prefer some measure of security; hence, if they are able to declare faith in an ideology that relieves them from discomfort. This view was, and is, amplified in the writings of Eric Hoffer. Flynn notes that many who truly believe in one political ideology often times convert to an opposite belief system. While not said, Horowitz could be a good example; however, so could Wittaker Chambers and the Apostle Paul. Faith based personalities require some comment and understanding but, certainly, not universal condemnation.
The author uses Marcuse’s work, One-Dimensional Man, as exemplifying the shortcomings of public intellectuals. Most assuredly, Marcuse’s statement that, “All authentic education is political education,” still resonates favorably. Colleges surely do not value high standards nor do they really make a sincere try at "liberal education." According to Flynn, our colleges are characterized by valuing leaps to faith and advocacy. Bourgeois morals and ethics get short shrift and are denigrated at every turn. Ditto for the great works of Western civilization. The result is a rebellion where those who are able send their children to private schools or practice home schooling.
In respect to a “liberal education” Tom Wolfe pointed out that this term originated in Roman times when slaves could be taught mathematics, architecture, medicine and the building trades but only the Romans could be taught rhetoric, theories of government and philosophy. The whole idea was to keep practical matters general but focus all governing knowledge into Roman patricians. Preparing for governing and rule was called a “liberal education.” Colleges and universities increasingly ascribe to public opinion that colleges are worthwhile only when they are trade schools. Allan Bloom argued for a liberal education because it was of value in its own right and was the underlying requirement for a successful representative republic.
But now it is time to discuss specifics.
Chapter two, “Science: How a Pervert Launched the Sexual Revolution,” is probably the best short biography ever done about Alfred Kinsey. Besides cataloguing his faults and failings it is meticulously researched and endnoted. Before I summarize this chapter, I must say, “mea culpa.” Not only was I up and taking nourishment at this time, but I was an adult and like almost all I found Kinsey’s conclusions iconoclastic and in the finest traditions of science and medicine.
Alas, how wrong I was. Dr. Kinsey was a troubled person. From an early age he inserted foreign objects into his urethra to enhance the orgasms associated with masturbation. His marriage remained unconsummated for months. As a scientist Kinsey studied wasps and went on field trips with young men. On these field trips Kinsey insisted on repeated, social naked bathing. Besides swapping his wife he was a homosexual with a large pornographic library in the attic of his home. Eventually, Kinsey opined that there were only three kinds of sexual pathology: celibacy, abstinence and delayed marriage.
His sexual publications including The Kinsey Report were not only widely acclaimed as literature but also as science. Unfortunately, Kinsey never did a simple random sample when he reported that ten per cent of males were homosexual. His work on children and his declaration that even infants were orgasmic was based on case histories he took from pedophiles. That Kinsey did this research with forethought is documented by his hiring a friend to claim to have done the statistics. Kinsey would frequently use “mean” and “median” interchangeably; he obviously did not know the difference between the two.
As time passed Kinsey became even more bizarre. In interviewing homosexuals he frequently had sex with them. Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy witnessed one such experience with a colleague—Dr. Earl Marsh. At other times he induced orgastic pleasure by putting a rope around his testicles and then hanging from this rope. Understandably, in time he required medical treatment and hospitalization.
Kinsey’s later book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, was equally flawed. The classic debunking was done in 1981 by Judith Reisman. Besides the flawed statistics, it is clear that Kinsey based a good deal of his conclusions on the basis of prostitutes’ self-reports.
When you sum it all up, the conclusion is inescapable: Kinsey’s work was not scientific state-of-the art knowledge, but a fraud grounded in no small part in his own sexual perversions. I am not of the opinion that personal life can be separated from one’s professional life such that one does not influence the other. In Kinsey’s case the problem is even worse—the scientist’s conclusions were mostly a function of his own psychopathology and a desire to normalize his pathology.
Flynn does similar biographies of Paul Ehrlich, Peter Singer, Rigoberta Menchu, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, Leo Strauss, Neoconservatives, Margaret Sanger, W.E.B. Du Bois, Alger Hiss, Ayn Rand, Betty Friedan and Jacques Derrida.
The author succeeds in debunking some of these public intellectuals but not others. A failing of the author, and most debunkers is they slip into an “I am okay but they are not okay” frame of mind and revel in “ain’t it awful” descriptions. Sometimes you can see these sins as directly related to the elite person’s beliefs and actions, in many cases you can not. The whole idea of examining an opponent’s beliefs and lifestyle must be to clarify important and relevant positions in respect to their work products.
Ayn Rand is no longer well known. She has, in my opinion, an honorable place as the founder of a coherent set of beliefs now labeled as “objectivism.” Many of the individuals once associated with her became movers and shakers in their own right. Allan Greenspan, our Fed Chairman, is a good example. David Nolan, founder of the Libertarian Party is another: he believes without Rand’s efforts his party would not exist.
Ayn Rand came to this country as a Russian speaking immigrant but managed to write successful, well thought out novels No one can deny her brilliance and few would deny her single-minded advocacy of her philosophy.
Objectivism maintains that truth is determined by reason and rational self-interest. Capitalism is the only system that can honestly determine man’s interaction with man. By definition objectivism is a militant atheist creed that claims immunity from both the power of government and church. Self-sacrifice and altruism are seen as incompatible with capitalism.
Admittedly, Ayn Rand was a heavy smoker, an atheist and a controller. While married she also had a passionate, long term affair with a much younger man. When her lover ditched her for a younger woman, she retaliated by kicking him out of her organization. Murray Rothbard was an early Randian, but he was forced to leave when he married a Christian who would not recant her faith. Flynn describes these and other sins as indicative of the shortcomings of objective philosophy. Perhaps they are, but unlike Kinsey it is hard to draw a straight-line causal connection between objectivism and her personal failings.
A better critique of objectivism was done by Whittaker Chambers in 1957. This was recently published again by National Review Online. Chambers saw Atlas Shrugged as unpersuasive. It dealt in all or nothing forced choices as well as caricatures of virtue and villainy. Chambers labeled it as a self-centered, sophomoric emotional screed. Chambers pointed out that materialism as an ethic comes to grief in practice. If there is no organizing force except self-interest, self interest soon becomes self pleasure. By necessity a “Big Brother” is required to keep punish indolence and the wheels of civilization turning. Chambers saw this “Big Brother” as manifested by Rand’s technocratic elite. Chambers critique was a no holds barred assault on a novel that at the time was both popular and successful. Some believe Chamber’s critique began the delineation of conservativism from objectivism.
It is a good idea to keep track of and debunk the reigning elites. Machiavelli warned us that elites were necessary but they existed in two groups—foxes and lions. Most of those criticized by Flynn are lions. Ayn Rand surely was a lion as were many others. Now things are different. We have many more elitists but they are foxes. Our current elites are hidden, or at least not easily seen as elites. Actually, our new elites frequently mouth anti-elitist rhetoric.
Some of our own elites are not so hidden. President Bush is the grandson of a Wall Street Buccaneer who later became a US Senator and the son of a former Director of the CIA and President of the United States. Further, President Bush went to an exclusive, private boarding school followed by Yale and an MBA from Harvard. In spite of these insider credentials he is seen by his political foes as a dumb, “Texas Cow Boy.” Apparently, our liberal opponents did not fathom being Texas cow boy was a plus. Such luck cannot occur twice since public opinion is death on WASP elites.
President Bush’s most recent opponent, Senator Kerry, also went to a private boarding school followed by Yale, a Rhodes scholarship and, finally, a law degree from Georgetown. Like the President he was a “Skull and Bones” man. He did less well in appearing as an ordinary guy and an anti-elitist. As a young man, he correctly pronounced Genghis Khan while giving his treacherous testimony on the Viet Nam War. He further showed an inability to understand public opinion when he chose windsurfing and a dorky salute as public relations efforts. He did manage to down play his fluent French. Bet on that the next Democrat to run for President will make better efforts at being seen as a regular person.
Unfortunately, many elites not only try to be regular guys and girls but prefer hiding out beneath public institutions. The Federal Courts, the big movers in Congress, the mass media presenters and the leaders in the professions and arts consistently mouth anti-elite rhetoric while wielding unprecedented power.
Perhaps this is the best argument for this excellent book—debunking the predictable and recognizable elites as a prelude to taking on the hidden elites. Surely, the author has proven his skill at the former. Hopefully, he will do the same for the latter.
Thank you for reading to the end.
A local pseudo-intellectual leftist had a column in the paper today that was a hit-piece on Leo Strauss. Maybe he got it from this book.
So much for the review, my college senior daughter wanted this book for Christmas. She received it and will now aggravate her professors by setting it on her desk in class in plain view. Luckily, it is her last semester. Hopefully she doesn't tick too many people off.
I have to wonder if this writer ever fully defined ideology, as I would argue it is a necessary form of agreement in forwarding the objectives of a group.
Good grief! I think I'll tie a rope around my testicles tonight and invite Barney Frank over for a Gin and Tonic.
Strauss was a believer in the great books of the Western world and even in his life time was criticized for being "too Jewish" as were many of his students. Strauss also favored pursuit of an empire and supported religion but may have been a skeptic at best.
IMHO most of the criticisms are directed as his followers and their successes. I also believe, from personal observation, that many resent the "Jewishness" of the people Strauss mentored. Seemingly, if they had been Bohemians or Hollanders it would have been a more acceptible school of thought.
No it doesn’t. Truth is identified, not determined, by observation and reason. According to Objectivism, rational self interest determines morality, not truth.
"Capitalism is the only system that can honestly determine man’s interaction with man."
Wrong. Capitalism does not “honestly” determine mans’ interactions”, it’s simply a description of the only “moral” economic system.
"Chambers pointed out that materialism as an ethic comes to grief in practice."
Materialism is not an Objectivist value. Chambers is confusing that with Objectivists' claim that money is the most “honest measure” of value, as opposed to trading favors or hinting at dept after large gifts.
"If there is no organizing force except self-interest, self interest soon becomes self pleasure. "
Rand agrees. She saw her organizing force or greater cause as perusing the ideal of man as a heroic being. She said life would be un-interesting otherwise.
"Some believe Chamber’s critique began the delineation of conservativism from objectivism. "
That there was ever more of an Objectivist-Conservative alliance than there is today is news to me.
Thank you elfman2. I posted what I read in the book and in Chambers essay. At least what I thought they said. Thanks again for your corrections.
Bump and thanks for a great read!
Yes,the column was an attempt to attack Strauss (with an implication he was a Nazi!), neo-cons, Christianity, and of course, the entire Bush administration.
Since when is it not acceptable to challenge the "intellectuality" of "intellectuals'? Paul Johnson was right to question their motives and arguments------and, their claim to this exalted status.
Geeeez, what's it coming to?
:)
-good times, G.J.P.(Jr.)
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.
