Left wing pundits and politicians frustrated with the continued inability and stubborn refusal of the American voter to understand and appreciate the accomplishments of President Obama and the Democratically controlled Congress, have turned to insult. This is apparently their last last ditch effort to get their message across before the November 2 mid-term elections.
Maureen Dowd in her recent op-ed piece in the New York Times "Making Ignorance Chic" whined that "Sarah Palin has made ignorance fashionable". Joe Klein in his Times op-ed was even more forthright. In his piece entitled "Ignorance As Authenticity" Klein writes that "there is something profoundly diseased about a society that idolizes its ignoramuses and disdains its experts". Even President Obama, in a much more moderate and temperate manner, blames his administration's failure to get through to the folks, on his politics, not his policies. In other words, the Administration has failed to dumb it down enough.
The American voter can perhaps be excused for disdaining its experts. After all experts have taken America into two wars, one of which is increasingly becoming out of control, a gzillion dollar debt and deficit, high unemployment, and a massive housing crisis. So why not try something new and completely different? How much worse can it get? At least that's what the unwashed masses must be thinking and with just cause.
In a recent speech to University of Alberta law students, Justice Thomas Cromwell of the Supreme Court of Canada told his audience that a lawyer's most important attribute is good judgment. Perhaps the same applies to politicians. Good judgment is what the American people are looking for in their politicians. It matters little to them whether their candidates can wax on about their favourite Supreme Court judgments, name the current leaders of other countries, or can draw a map of the world. That's the stuff for professors and advisers. If successful, the politicians will be able to afford to hire all the experts they need to educate them. They can learn all that important stuff from them once in office.
One might in fact argue that the problem with smart people is that they think they do not need to listen to or take the advice of others. Why should they? They know soooo much. I for one would rather be led by a person who knows what they did not know, than one who knows everything.
Joe Klein and Maureen Dowd provide excellent illustrations of my point about good judgment. Do they really think that being obnoxious is going to help their cause? Are the dummies out there going to be enlightened by the insults and change their minds about which politicians to support? Of course not. Anyone with good judgment will realize that this will only energize these folks and broaden the base. President Obama learned that lesson in the Pennsylvania primary against Clinton. I am sure he is none too pleased with the type of support he and his party are getting from the likes of Joe Klein and Maureen Dowd. As they say "with friends like these, who needs enemies".
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Welcome back, Professor Klar!
ReplyDeleteThough Klein & Dowd are partisan hacks, what do you think of the substance of their charges? I'm thinking specifically of Christine O'Donnell, here. She didn't know what the Establishment Clause was, couldn't name any recent Supreme Court decisions. Asked why, if humans are, in her words, 'descended from apes', we don't see apes evolving right now. Aren't Klein & Dowd right in saying that's setting the bar pretty low for a U.S. Senator?
Hope things are tip-top around the law school.
Yours truly,
Scott
Thanks Scott. And thanks for the post card. You are partly responsible for my decision to re-enter the blogosphere.
ReplyDeleteMy concern is not with partisan ad hominem attacks against specific candidates (although I think these are the signs of a desperate campaign) but on the sweeping indictment of the American voter. Evidently a lot of the people who once supported Obama (about 70% of those polled) now have become racists, ignoramuses and idiots. How did that happen?
Hope you are enjoying Norway. I look forward to hearing all about it.
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteYou didn't answer Scott's question. Here are two others that you can take a stab at not answering:
1. Should a court considering a complex duty of care issue reject what you have written about the duty of care in your textbook in favour of a letter to the editor written by a candidate for office, which argues for "tort reform" but which also reveals that the candidate has never bothered to read or otherwise learn about tort law?
2. Would you give a passing grade to a first year torts student who on her final examination cites no authority, clearly knows no authority, missttates the law, and instead answers every question by referring you to "our founding fathers"?
Consistency with what you have written in your post - and your enthusiasm for "something new and completely different" - requires that you answer "yes" to both questions.
I will add by saying that I agree with the part of your post that suggests that a person need not be an "expert" to seek political office. But in much of your post you fail to distinguish between the non-expert who acknowledges that they do not have all the answers but are well-intentioned and eager to learn (I have voted for just those kinds of people many, many times), and the non-expert who knows nothing but thinks they don't need to know anything, and instead believe the answer lies in applying [insert ambiguosly expressed ideological preference here].
Russ
Welcome back, Russ!
ReplyDeleteI might point out to both you and Scott that Christine O'Donnell will most likely lose in Delaware. She is way behind in the polls there, despite the general enthusiasm for Republican candidates elsewhere. So, if one wants to make a case that the American voter is a racist, idiot and that ignorance is chic, as Dowd and Klein want to do, they have chosen the wrong State. So much for their theory. I look forward to the day that Klein and Dowd go after the American voter for continuing to support Charles Rangel and for continuing their love affair with Bill Clinton. Maybe being unethical and dishonest is now fashionable?
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteIf your point is that some people in the media are snarky leftists, fair enough. (Although this is hardly news - where have you been for the last 40 years?) But it seems to me that your point is more effectively made when it is not coupled with a celebration of wanton ignorance.
Further, I don't actually think Dowd and Klein are necessarily wrong in those snippets you took from their pieces. And, criticizing wanton ignorance among political candidates does not seem to me to be a bad thing to do. I can only assume - since you did not answer either of the two questions I posed - that you would not want such ignorance to prevail in our chosen field. So why criticize Dowd and Klein for saying that it should not prevail in someone else's?
Russ
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteGood judgement, which you endorse, requires a balanced view of all sides of an issue. So why do you insist on only criticizing the left, even to the absurd extent of defending would-be holders of high political office who criticize court decisions of which they have no knowledge, and apparently are strangers to a map of the world on which they would hope to direct American foreign policy?
Ron C
"One might in fact argue that the problem with smart people is that they think they do not need to listen to or take the advice of others. Why should they? They know soooo much. I for one would rather be led by a person who knows what they did not know, than one who knows everything."
ReplyDeleteThere's a difference between 'smart' and 'know-it-all.' 'Smart' means 'able to: learn, reason and solve problems,' relatively quickly.
The only 'thing wrong with smart people' is that there aren't enough of us.