progressivism, individualism, and the public ... - Telmarc Group
progressivism, individualism, and the public ... - Telmarc Group
progressivism, individualism, and the public ... - Telmarc Group
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
The <strong>Telmarc</strong> <strong>Group</strong><br />
PROGRESSIVISM, INDIVIDUALISM, AND THE PUBLIC<br />
INTELLECTUAL<br />
The iconic <strong>public</strong> intellectual of liberal condescension was Columbia University historian<br />
Richard Hofstadter, who died in 1970 but whose spirit still permeated that school when<br />
Obama matriculated <strong>the</strong>re in 1981. Hofstadter pioneered <strong>the</strong> rhetorical tactic that<br />
Obama has revived with his diagnosis of working-class Democrats as victims -- <strong>the</strong><br />
indispensable category in liberal <strong>the</strong>ory. The tactic is to dismiss ra<strong>the</strong>r than refute those<br />
with whom you disagree.<br />
Obama's dismissal is: Americans, especially working-class conservatives, are unable,<br />
because of <strong>the</strong>ir false consciousness, to deconstruct <strong>the</strong>ir social context <strong>and</strong> embrace <strong>the</strong><br />
liberal program. Today that program is to elect Obama, <strong>the</strong>reby making his wife at long<br />
last proud of America. "<br />
But if Will has discovered a nexus, a nexus of substantial value, <strong>the</strong>n one must say that<br />
Hofstadter <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> prejudice <strong>and</strong> near hatred of rubes <strong>and</strong> Irish Catholics may still live<br />
on. Will sees <strong>the</strong> pervasive influence of Hofstadter. Indeed <strong>the</strong>re is <strong>the</strong> view that only <strong>the</strong><br />
Intellectual on Morningside Heights sees <strong>the</strong> truth <strong>and</strong> that <strong>the</strong> rubes <strong>and</strong> Catholics below<br />
need guidance for <strong>the</strong> response from this underclass is <strong>the</strong>ir almost animalistic <strong>and</strong><br />
unguided d responses.<br />
His dismissal of those with whom you disagree is in many ways a result also of <strong>the</strong><br />
influence of Herbert Marcuse in his work The One Dimensional Man. For it was<br />
Marcuse who gave structure to what Hofstadter <strong>and</strong> Bell <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs were saying in that<br />
he argued that <strong>the</strong> society had through its advertising, preaching <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> like reduced<br />
people to sheep, to followers. Marcuse became <strong>the</strong> prophet for <strong>the</strong> 60s generation of<br />
protesters, especially at Columbia. In fact, Marcuse was saying in a more elegant can<br />
compelling manner what Galbraith had popularized in The Affluent Society, namely that<br />
society was manipulated to "buy" what corporate institutions wanted <strong>the</strong>m to buy, that<br />
individual choice was being ripped away, <strong>and</strong> that society had only one path <strong>and</strong> that was<br />
<strong>the</strong> path laid out by <strong>the</strong> capitalists.<br />
This underclass needs direction <strong>and</strong> guidance, says Hofstadter, <strong>and</strong> whatever <strong>the</strong>y may<br />
think, whatever opinion <strong>the</strong>y may have is uninformed because <strong>the</strong>y just have not listened,<br />
<strong>the</strong>y do not underst<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> in some cases <strong>the</strong>y do not have <strong>the</strong> capability of even<br />
underst<strong>and</strong>ing. They have in <strong>the</strong> mind of many of <strong>the</strong>se intellectuals become <strong>the</strong><br />
"untouchables", <strong>the</strong>y are <strong>the</strong>re but <strong>the</strong>y just should be forgotten. If one reads between <strong>the</strong><br />
lines of <strong>the</strong> letter to me from Barr in 1960 that view is pervasive. I had been inculcated<br />
<strong>and</strong> Columbia was just beyond me. Somehow MIT thought differently. Also I was a<br />
Professor in 1996 at Columbia in <strong>the</strong> Business School. Frankly <strong>the</strong> students were some of<br />
<strong>the</strong> least intelligent I have ever seen in my forty plus years of teaching 161 .<br />
161 I taught in <strong>the</strong> 1995-1996 year at Columbia Business School. I was uniquely unimpressed by <strong>the</strong> students. They<br />
were in an Executive Program <strong>and</strong> one would have expected some underst<strong>and</strong>ing. They were lacking in any<br />
ma<strong>the</strong>matical skills, <strong>and</strong> had de minimis knowledge of common business principles. In contrast in <strong>the</strong> late 1980 <strong>and</strong><br />
early 1990s I was a Professor at <strong>the</strong> Polytechnic University, now NYU's Engineering School in Brooklyn. The students<br />
were for <strong>the</strong> most part first or second generation Americans from everywhere. They were bright <strong>and</strong> hard working,<br />
eager to learn, street smart, open, <strong>and</strong> lacking in <strong>the</strong> arrogance of <strong>the</strong> Columbia students. My MIT doctoral students are<br />
Page 149