Here are two more news items concerning the almost intractable problem of increasingly bitter culture wars. First, John Leo, deplores the demise of genuine political argument. At one time argument meant an attempt to convince others of one’s point of view, along with a willingness to listen to the other. Argument, formerly a mutual search for the truth, now consists of two televised talking heads rudely shouting at each other. Second, David Brooks offers an explanation as to why this is so. He suggests political discourse is dominated by two aristocracies: the managerial and the academic. Here is an extract:
“Knowledge-class types are more likely to value leaders who possess what may 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.”
There was always a gulf between these two aristocracies. It became almost unbridgeable when the Supreme Court took the abortion discussion away from the voting public in Roe v. Wade. There ideas for bridging the gap – but no politician dare can adopt them.
Comments