Posted on 06/14/2004 9:58:03 PM PDT by neverdem
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 might 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.
For one, the choice of the word "professionals" is a mistake. IIRC, true professionals are only doctors, lawyers, and ....forgot the 3rd...lil help?
Also there's this: "The members of the aristocracy of mind produce ideas, and pass along knowledge"
I haven't seen any new ideas or knowledge from the Left. They have spewed hate and vile instead of presenting constructive policy alternatives. I deal with alot of these types in MD - most are ignorant of the most basic facts re world events.
The last Great Idea was Reagan's Revolution. Liberal dogma & culture has never fully recovered from it. The NYT and its writers continue to be perplexed that America doens't "get" their message. Perhaps they flatter themselves too much.
Kwap, absolute kwap.
Any bloody day they like, I'll spot any of these filth 30 pts on a standardised IQ test and blow their intellectually inferior DOORS off.
And, the really scary part is that someone who is truly intelligent might likely do the same to me, on the same test.
NEVER assume, and NEVER act on the assumption, that you're the smartest person on the block. A lesson this arrogant bozo and his fellows have never learnt. (What a shock, eh?)
Brooks mentioned them: architects.
Also there's this: "The members of the aristocracy of mind produce ideas, and pass along knowledge"
"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."
The operative word is "seem." These people aren't at all intellectual. Their tagline should be, "I'm not an intellectual, but I play one on TV." And that was a cute use by Brooks of "nuanced," but the judgments of virtually all socialist "intellectuals" are standardized, off-the-rack hackery.
"forgot the 3rd...lil help? "
Accountants, no? CPAs that is. They've got a code of conduct and everything. And like the other two groups, they're always "practicing".
I work for lawyers now, how foolish I was to stop bookkeeping for accountants. That was truly the easiest job I have ever had.
The way you resolve the natural conflict between intellectuals and the rest is "liberty". Intellectuals must lead by persuading and teaching. They must never be granted any authority beyond what they can earn in an even match with anyone else. Our grandfathers didn't die to build an oligarchy of the pointed heads.
Teaching used to be considered a profession before the unions got involved.
Third type, maybe I would expand that a little and include engineers, those in the hard sciences and math, and some in the social sciences who deal in the real world as it is, not what they wish it to be, e.g. Abigail Thernstrom(sp?) or Samuel Huntington. The vast majority who spout the party line in the social sciences strike me as poseurs.
BTW, the author David Brooks is a conservative who used to work at the Weekly Standard.
Why not? They probably are less than the mean of a normal distribution plus or minus two standard deviations. They are abnormally gifted. /sarcasm
I thought he turned a while back.
Yes he was seduced by the dark side. Writing for the NY Times is a clue.
No matter his political views, from this article (and others I've seen from his pen) he is certainly a phony and almost unquestionably a pr*ck, hence a dildo by definition.
''Intellectual elite'', my great aunt Sadie. For membership in this soi-sidant ''elite'', all one has to do is to talk frequently enough with some number of the similarly self-anointed, to the point where one is granted ''elite'' status by the other dildoes and dildettes.
''Oooohhh, I read avant-garde 'literature' with no plot, no cohesion, no characters...I'm of the ''elite'', dontchasee?''
''Well, the notion that a person must produce in order to consume is just a bourgeois misconception left over from a century ago. The purpose of society, as any intellectual will tell you, is to provide for those who will not provide for themselves.'' (...borrowed freely from Rand, this is)
''Property? How can there be private property when there is need? Does your ''property right'' to a piece of land outweigh the ABSOLUTE right of some other person to eat? Yes, absolute. Even if his right requires the sacrifice of your property.''
How does that old saying go (I won't get it right, sorry)?
''It's only an intellectual who can say such stupid things.''
And Brooks and his fellow dildoes qualify...in spades.
He counters Mark Shields from CNN's Crossfire on PBS's Newshour every Friday and when PBS has overt political coverage. The Times is probably prepping him for Safire's retirement.
"teachers, lawyers, architects, academics, journalists, therapists, decorators..."
He left out dog groomers.
Are you thinking of David Brock?
It seems to me that Brooks is trying to make a valid distinction between pubbies who are practical and value loyalty and rats who are theoretical and only care about winning, regardless. I can't understand your hostility other than its a visceral hatred of anything associated with New York.
Is there some confusion between David Brooks and David Brock, the former writer for the American Spectator and tormentor of Clinton, who flipped to the left after his homosexuality was disclosed?
Thanks for the reminder.
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.