> Isaac Asimov once said: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
I've often wondered what would cause the United States' empire to collapse, but see now how we've always been on a precipice. Ironically one that even financial greed can't hold together. Even Hitler was democratically elected, so given enough time the right conditions will inevitably come together for someone similar to come into power, likely states will be forced to succeed from the union when that happens etc.
I'm not sure this is relevant. As far as I know, he didn't come to power by a coup. Sure, there were lots of backroom machinations, his party didn't get outright majority, he exploited some pilitical stalemate, etc, etc, but it was all within the rules. All democracies have complex rules, the fact that he was appointed by someone else is a technicallity. For example, the 538 blog explained the other day that some candidate from Utah, unknown to the vast majority of the US voters, can technically end up president. Does that make the US not a democracy?
Hitler wasn't democratically elected. The Reich Chancellor was appointed by the President. It just so happened that then president Paul von Hindenburg was convinced by people on his staff to form a coalition government with the NSDAP, which had around 40% of the popular vote.
Point is that, although people often point to the Nazis as some failure of democracy, they didn't sweep into power by a landslide election (Hitler ran for president against Hindenburg and lost). They were strong, but nowhere that strong. It took a lot of political maneuvering and dirty tactics until they finally seized power by exploiting the Reichstag Fire [0] in order to pass two decrees [1][2] which essentially made Hitler a dictator.
Furthermore, although Nazis were anti-intellectuals, I don't think that was the key to this whole process.
I thought for a while, before Trump came on the scene that, of the developed countries, it would likely be the US that would fall for an authoritarian just because they have never dealt with one and are complacent about it happening there. As if the US doesn't have its share of sociopaths. If anything capitalistic individualistic societies breed them even more.
I can't agree. I think the problems lie with: 0) universities that teach an excess of oft irrelevant minutia via regurgitation -- and not the mastery of essentials followed by forays into lessons of experimentation and invention, 1) corporate HR departments that have no idea if they are failing and don't care, 2) employers that believe matching on an alphabet soup of low level S/W skills are the only way to attract and select the best people.
As long as a keen inventive mind is not the principal measure of a job candidate, corporate America will continue to minimize risk rather than maximize potential, eventually populating itself only with robots, be they wetware or software. And universities will continue blithely down their current path to foster ever more sterile minds.
This idea has been around since the creation of public schooling in Prussia in the late 18th century-- which the American system is based off of. Created to benefit the nationstate, not the individual.
"I don't want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers" - John D. Rockefeller, who funded much of the beginnings of our public edu system including the General Education Board
Remember, we just elected a black man who was the head of the Harvard Law Review. Whatever you think about him, he did not succeed because of know-nothingism. We have bifurcated in some ways, but there's still a lot to be excited about!
> Remember, we just elected a black man who was the head of the Harvard Law Review. Whatever you think about him, he did not succeed because of know-nothingism.
I can count on one hand the number of political positions Barack Obama has held with which I agree, but you're right on this count. Obama was successful because he's probably the greatest campaigner in my lifetime. That skill includes the ability to build, manage, and inspire a large organization. His campaign "machine" will have an impact on American politics for decades to come.
> We have bifurcated in some ways, but there's still a lot to be excited about!
I agree, but I would also like to point out that the bifurcation is not along party lines. It's obvious to me that there are not-insubstantial factions of both major parties who simply do not care about the policies of their party's candidates. They identify with the tribe, see them as the "good guys", and therefore the opposing party are the "bad guys".
Yeah, the tribalism isn't really based on party lines so much. Identity politics has gained primary importance, perhaps in part because of social media.
Yeah, I've read that article and largely agree with it.
Personally, I'm as anti-authoritarian as can be, to the point of considering myself an anarchist. My childhood was spent around conservatives though, so I guess you could say that I'm "culturally Republican". I noticed early on that Trump's support within the GOP was predominately among those who had no problems with using the power of government to shape society to their own notions.
Trump might be good for America, in the same way Brexit might prove to be good for Britain. These events pull the mist away, and show that something is fundamentally broken.
Democracy is not supposed to be the rule of the mob. There are supposed to be safeguards, constitutions and general education that mean the mess of voting still leads the country in a forward, progressive direction. Each generation better than the last etc.
Both Trump and Brexit show that somewhere along the line that process has failed. And its their opponents that are to blame - they made too many assumptions, capitalised on the wrong emotions for their personal gain etc.
Bringing it all crashing to the ground in a mix of bad hair and racism gives an opportunity, after the dust settles, to rebuild better than before.
Assuming we survive the global recession to follow shortly of course.
I understand your evident discomfort. How galling to find that seventeen million people (dumbos?) constituting the 'mob' (five million more than ever voted at any period in any UK general election) gave a thumbs down to the EU as a governing body that imposes rules and regulations on people irrespective of their wishes. If only those intellectuals who <did> support Brexit had had a better education!
> The American Association of State Colleges and Universities report on education shows that the U.S. ranks second among all nations in the proportion of the population aged 35-64 with a college degree, but 19th in the percentage of those aged 25-34 with an associate or high school diploma, which means that for the first time, the educational attainment of young people will be lower than their parents;
Maybe because since 1995 [1]:
"The average tuition and fees at private National Universities jumped 179 percent. Out-of-state tuition and fees at public universities rose 226 percent since 1995.In-state tuition and fees at public National Universities grew the most, increasing a staggering 296 percent"
Interesting idea, but any possibility of making a point is hindered by shying away from root causes. The article focuses on contributing causes that are themselves symptoms in a self-reinforcing system.
There is nothing new in saying the American schooling system is falling. Or in blaming it on social mores of popularity in school jocks v. geeks. Or a wider society that doesn't encourage learning. “We don’t educate people anymore. We train them to get jobs.”
These are all age old whipping boys. -- Stop talking about them in and of themselves and start asking WHY?
It beats a slightly fresher dead horse with the "angry social media posters" but doesn't even mention the clickbait trash bloggers teaching them to have those thoughts.
(Spoilers: Why not? This article is a Psychology Today blogpost, let's click over to the homepage. The cover page of their latest issue touts an article called "The Narcissist: It's not always who you think." Oh.)
(Bonus irony tangent: This point is raised by quoting a NY Times blogger to argue that rational thought and critical thinking are on the decline, and blames it on shouty everyday people. But what about the NY Times itself? Their reporting is still among the best, but how often do they (or other prestigious news outlets) themselves promote rationality and critical thinking? If they spent a fraction of the time asking their audience to think critically about "What is good governance?" instead of focusing on "Watch this trainwreck;" how long do you think Donald Trump would have lasted? He'd be evaporated by the first debate, if he made it that far.)
Of course this article is part of the problem too. Read the last paragraph, then the short bio of the author that follows. He's not trying to solve anything but instead pitching a business management book.
21 comments
[ 0.23 ms ] story [ 66.3 ms ] threadI've often wondered what would cause the United States' empire to collapse, but see now how we've always been on a precipice. Ironically one that even financial greed can't hold together. Even Hitler was democratically elected, so given enough time the right conditions will inevitably come together for someone similar to come into power, likely states will be forced to succeed from the union when that happens etc.
This is a myth. Hitler did well at the ballot booth but could never secure the majority he needed to be elected. He was appointed Chancellor.
Point is that, although people often point to the Nazis as some failure of democracy, they didn't sweep into power by a landslide election (Hitler ran for president against Hindenburg and lost). They were strong, but nowhere that strong. It took a lot of political maneuvering and dirty tactics until they finally seized power by exploiting the Reichstag Fire [0] in order to pass two decrees [1][2] which essentially made Hitler a dictator.
Furthermore, although Nazis were anti-intellectuals, I don't think that was the key to this whole process.
[0] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
[1] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree
[2] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
And yet I hear about an unemployable student debt crisis. IMO it sounds like we should be doing more training, not less.
As long as a keen inventive mind is not the principal measure of a job candidate, corporate America will continue to minimize risk rather than maximize potential, eventually populating itself only with robots, be they wetware or software. And universities will continue blithely down their current path to foster ever more sterile minds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI - David Foster Wallace Commencement Speech
It's well worth the 22 minutes, IMO.
"I don't want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers" - John D. Rockefeller, who funded much of the beginnings of our public edu system including the General Education Board
I can count on one hand the number of political positions Barack Obama has held with which I agree, but you're right on this count. Obama was successful because he's probably the greatest campaigner in my lifetime. That skill includes the ability to build, manage, and inspire a large organization. His campaign "machine" will have an impact on American politics for decades to come.
> We have bifurcated in some ways, but there's still a lot to be excited about!
I agree, but I would also like to point out that the bifurcation is not along party lines. It's obvious to me that there are not-insubstantial factions of both major parties who simply do not care about the policies of their party's candidates. They identify with the tribe, see them as the "good guys", and therefore the opposing party are the "bad guys".
Also, on that note, I thought this was interesting: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-...
Basically, the "Trump tribe" is identified by their embrace of authoritarianism.
Personally, I'm as anti-authoritarian as can be, to the point of considering myself an anarchist. My childhood was spent around conservatives though, so I guess you could say that I'm "culturally Republican". I noticed early on that Trump's support within the GOP was predominately among those who had no problems with using the power of government to shape society to their own notions.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vmI6YpGew1w
Democracy is not supposed to be the rule of the mob. There are supposed to be safeguards, constitutions and general education that mean the mess of voting still leads the country in a forward, progressive direction. Each generation better than the last etc.
Both Trump and Brexit show that somewhere along the line that process has failed. And its their opponents that are to blame - they made too many assumptions, capitalised on the wrong emotions for their personal gain etc.
Bringing it all crashing to the ground in a mix of bad hair and racism gives an opportunity, after the dust settles, to rebuild better than before.
Assuming we survive the global recession to follow shortly of course.
Maybe because since 1995 [1]: "The average tuition and fees at private National Universities jumped 179 percent. Out-of-state tuition and fees at public universities rose 226 percent since 1995.In-state tuition and fees at public National Universities grew the most, increasing a staggering 296 percent"
[1] http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-col...
There is nothing new in saying the American schooling system is falling. Or in blaming it on social mores of popularity in school jocks v. geeks. Or a wider society that doesn't encourage learning. “We don’t educate people anymore. We train them to get jobs.”
These are all age old whipping boys. -- Stop talking about them in and of themselves and start asking WHY?
It beats a slightly fresher dead horse with the "angry social media posters" but doesn't even mention the clickbait trash bloggers teaching them to have those thoughts.
(Spoilers: Why not? This article is a Psychology Today blogpost, let's click over to the homepage. The cover page of their latest issue touts an article called "The Narcissist: It's not always who you think." Oh.)
(Bonus irony tangent: This point is raised by quoting a NY Times blogger to argue that rational thought and critical thinking are on the decline, and blames it on shouty everyday people. But what about the NY Times itself? Their reporting is still among the best, but how often do they (or other prestigious news outlets) themselves promote rationality and critical thinking? If they spent a fraction of the time asking their audience to think critically about "What is good governance?" instead of focusing on "Watch this trainwreck;" how long do you think Donald Trump would have lasted? He'd be evaporated by the first debate, if he made it that far.)
Of course this article is part of the problem too. Read the last paragraph, then the short bio of the author that follows. He's not trying to solve anything but instead pitching a business management book.