Palinism and the Place of Knowledge in America.
Over at the Atlantic, and guest-blogging at Andrew Sullivan's website, Conor Friedersdorf has an intriguing and thoughtful post reacting to a parent's experiment in homeschooling curriculum development for his young highschooler son, named Wes. I have to say, my own contrarian view of homeschooling aside, that I, like Conor, was somewhat envious of the creative, interdisciplinary learning experience that is awaiting this fortunate young highschooler.
In his post, Conor, who admits to being jealous of young Wes, writes:
What strikes me, all these years later, about my lousy but better-than-average high school education is how useful it proved in preparing me for college and the job market. Absent exceptional teachers, an academically competitive high school basically teaches the young how to game the system lots of people call the American meritocracy. It is difficult to describe this skill set precisely, though it certainly includes things like earning good grades in classes you know little if anything about, learning to game standardized tests and exams, employing writerly tricks to obscure the fact that you know nothing of substance about the topic of your five page paper, and understanding which teachers aren't desirous of substance insomuch as they want an ability to fake it on pages where the margins and font are diligently set to their specifications.A fascinating reaction. And I imagine Conor's jealousy of young Wes is shared by many, myself included, whose thirst for "knowledge as something more than a metric to be measured by standardized tests, a means of admission to a selective college or a prerequisite for strategic advancement in the American job market" is burning and insatiable.
Oh to have those youthful years back. As an adult, I understand the preciousness of time, and I sorely regret having wasted any of it simulating rather than gaining knowledge. The experience does inform a suspicion that if we stopped making the overlap between academic skills and life skills a self-fulfilling prophecy, they might overlap less than we imagine. Were that the case, perhaps high schools would rejigger their curriculum to more closely resemble what Alan is attempting: knowledge as something more than a metric to be measured by standardized tests, a means of admission to a selective college or a prerequisite for strategic advancement in the American job market.
And then I had another epiphany ...
At one level, one would think this disconnect between knowledge and the structural mechanisms that lead to success in Western society are precisely what the Palinite wing of the conservative movement in the U.S. would embrace. But I can't help but think, re-reading exactly what young Wes's curriculum is shaping up to be, that Palinites would recoil violently from such a course of study, considering it to be alien and un-American, and rejecting it as elitist -- simply and only because it develops the critical and integrative capacity of the mind. I am convinced that young Wes would have no place in Sarah Palin's brand of "conservatism." And this realization confirms even more for me that the Palinites are not really anti-establishment and anti-elitist. I'm sure they would be very much at home with a particular kind of "establishment" and a particular type of "elite." Rather, I am reduced to thinking that they are, sadly, anti-intellectual. And that is not a comforting thought.
Posts
8 comments:
Huck, your theory doesn't match my experience at all. Of the (many) homeschooling parents I know, the ones who are most dedicated to a classical and broad education (i.e., the ones who teach their kids some Latin and really make them read 'Origin Of Species' ) are more likely to be Palin supporters for this very reason: they see Palin as someone who would enthusiastically support their decision to take personal responsibility for ensuring the quality of their kids' education, and quite possibly help them by allowing them to get a rebate on the public education taxes they pay but don't use (I'm not even sure Palin supports such a measure, but I'm sure the homeschooling parents I know who like her would believe that she does). The elitism that the Palinites are recoiling from is not the idea that you are snooty if you read Shakespeare. It is the idea that if you read Shakespeare at Harvard you will somehow be blessed with a more privelaged understanding of The Bard than somebody who gives his work serious thought and study at their local community college (not that either institution is likely to waste much time on a crusty old white European like Shakespeare these days, anyway). As opposed to 'recoiling violently' from it, I think Palin supporters (again, at least the ones I know) would be more likely than most to applaud this kind of unconventional thinking about education.
I, on the other hand, have a much more utilitarian view of the role of education, especially public education. I think broad holistic knowledge, as a means to personal growth, is a wonderful and enlightening pursuit, but it is also a luxury that can be pursued by any interested party outside of academic settings. On the other hand, if we as a nation don't learn how to effectively read, write, reason, express thoughts, and unite around a basic shared understanding of history... well, lets just say I hope you know how to ride a horse becasue that will soon become our national mode of transportation again. So I'm more likey to support lots of rote memorization and standardized tests in public school settings, with the goal being employable citizens who have a basic set of life skills. I'm not a Nazi on this position, but I tend to distrust (and perhaps even scoff at) public school curriculum that doesn't offer a standardized way to measure the effectiveness of knowledge transmission from teacher to students.
Maybe that makes me anti-intellectual, but even so, I'm one of the people who is skeptical of Palin.
And this leads me to something I've been doing a lot of thinking about the last few days: I am truly perplexed by seemingly institutional inability of liberals to correctly identify just who Palin's base of support is. You guys seem to think she just appeals to Young Earth Creationists, Archie Bunker types, rednecks, and trailer trash. And to be honest, she does appeal to those people. But the left is really letting its guard down if they think this is the extent of her support base.
Eric - Interesting comments. They do make sense to me. As I said in my posting, one would intuitively think that the purpose of this particular homeschooling curriculum, if it is as Conor suggests, would tend to align itself conceptually with what many conservatives seem to like about Palin -- her disassociation from the kind of intellectualism that is often associated with Ivy-league elites, etc., and that have become a kind of pathway to success and power. I would agree that there is a segment of the homeschooling community that might find the intellectual conservatism of William F. Buckley, Jr., appealing; and to the extent that they think Palin represents this vein of conservatism, might support Palin as well. But I also know that homeschooled kids subject to the kind of education that is being constructed in the example we're discussing are the ones that find great value in (and are quite successful at) getting into the Ivy league schools. Educations at Harvard, Yale, and Stanford are highly sought after and valued among this group. And yet it seems quite clear, at least in terms of intellectual drive and ambition, that these individuals are very much subject to the very outspoken dismissiveness and disdain of Palinist conservatism. Some of these folks might like parts of what they think Palin could represent as a conservative; but it seems clear to me that Palin and the bulk of her followers don't really care much for these folks.
I think it's fair to say that we're not likely to ever hear Palin extol the value and virtue of intellectualism. I think it's fair to say that we're not likely to ever hear Palin extol the virtue of taking Darwin's "Origin of Species" or the poetry of the Persian Poet Rumi or the Bhagavad Gita seriously. I think it's fair to say that we're not likely ever to hear Palin throw plaudits to Conservative intellectuals because of their Ivy-league educations and credentials. Palin trades primarily on pooh-poohing (and not embracing) the kind of intellectual pursuit and curiosity that accompanies the kind of homeschool curriculum we're talking about here. Wes, this young homeschooled kid, were he go to Harvard, might agree with everything you claim about the ability to engage Shakespeare or Voltaire at the local community college and disdain the elitism that pretends otherwise; but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that Wes wouldn't be so eager to claim his Harvard pedigree, or even flash his brilliant knowledge of Kierkegaard's defense of the subjectivity inherent to religious faith against the rationalism of the Hegelian dialectic, in a crowd of Palinites.
Eric - You also write: The elitism that the Palinites are recoiling from is not the idea that you are snooty if you read Shakespeare. It is the idea that if you read Shakespeare at Harvard you will somehow be blessed with a more privelaged understanding of The Bard than somebody who gives his work serious thought and study at their local community college (not that either institution is likely to waste much time on a crusty old white European like Shakespeare these days, anyway). As opposed to 'recoiling violently' from it, I think Palin supporters (again, at least the ones I know) would be more likely than most to applaud this kind of unconventional thinking about education.
To this I would say: I'm not convinced. I really think that you are presuming that Palinites see the value of Shakespeare to begin with. I would argue that, by all indications, the mere reference of Shakespeare, regardless of whether it came from self-study, from the local community college, or at Stanford, is indicative of elitist pretension among the Palinites. The Bard is irrelevant. It is of a piece with Palin's intellectual incuriosity. [Aside: An example of what I mean: I noticed that you commented at RWN about how you liked Palin's WaPo Op-Ed on Cap-and-Trade. But what was there, really, in Palin's Op-Ed that said anything of substance about what Cap-and-Trade is proposing to address. I read that piece and I'm still not clear Palin even knows what Cap-and-Trade specifically is! She calls it Cap-and-Tax, but she never once even hints that she knows what is being capped and how it amounts to a tax! It was all boilerplate platitudes. There was no meat on the bones, Eric. But, back to point...] It is a sign of pretentious elitism simply to find meaning in Shakespeare. I can't recall any time where Palin has ever referred to a thinker, a scholar, or an intellectual -- even conservative ones -- to make a point or reference an argument.
Finally, you are right that we liberals needs to be careful not to underestimate the extent of Palin's support base. There are, indeed, conservative professionals and intellectuals who find her an appealing figure. But, in my experience, they find her appealing by default -- (1) she's the liberal foil (they like her because liberals don't, not because she's inherently appealing on the merits) and (2) there's literally no one else. And I have also noticed that these folks (and perhaps you might be one of these people yourself) can be a bit embarrassed and a bit ashamed by her lack of intellectual heft, which makes them ultimately ambivalent fence-sitters.
Let me contrast Palin with my own state's Governor, Bobby Jindal. I would say that Bobby Jindal comes from middle class origins similar to Sarah Palin, and I would also say that Jindal's conservative credentials are probably even more established than Palin's. The difference is that Jindal is a thinker. And someone like this homeschooled kid Wes, if he is conservative, would find a much more welcome environment in the Jindal orbit than the Palin orbit -- without sacrificing all that much, if anything, in terms of conservative values.
"I would argue that, by all indications, the mere reference of Shakespeare, regardless of whether it came from self-study, from the local community college, or at Stanford, is indicative of elitist pretension among the Palinites."
What indications are you talking about, Huck? What Palin supporters have you seen accuse people of being intellectually snooty for mentioning Shakespeare? There are a a ton of Palin supporters over at RWN, and I would bet dollars to donuts that the majority of them would be enthusiastic if their kids took an interest in reading Shakespeare, even the ones who are meanspirited kneejerk reactionaries. I'm sure the type of anti-intellectual Palin supporter you are talking about exists (I know a few), but I live smack dab in the middle of a giant red sea of Palin support, and I am very sure your image of her demographic is quite distorted.
Now, on to some of your other points:
1) Yes, I'm sure there are a lot of homeschooled kids out there who are shooting for Ivy League schools. There are also quite a few who would be more happy following in Tim Tebow's footsteps, or in foregoing college altogether (which IMHO is a wise choice for many, if not most, young people). The point is, the desire to pursue an elite degree may or may not have any correlation to the level of a person's intellectual curiosity and seriousness. In today's society, the acquisition of such a degree seems more likely to say something about a person's ambition for social status than their love of knowledge.
2) One of the argumets of Palin supporters, which I have disagreed with but am coming around to, is that in a President, intellectual suppleness isn't half as important as ideological discipline. Obama's intellectual depth was appealing to many of us on the right who were tired of Bush's more, um, "unrefined" approach to public discourse. But six months in, I'd gladly trade eloquent speeches for a little downhome common sense, and in fact, find myself rolling my eyes at the ridiculous things Obama says every bit as much as I did at Bush (and Bush made me roll my eyes a lot). The truth is conservative principals are simple, and can be plainly stated. I do crave more eloquence, but at the end of the day it is window dressing. The question for me about Palin is just how ideologically disciplined is she? This is where a lot of conservatives see things in her I do not, but that is a different issue.
3) Regarding Palin's failure to cite conservative intellectuals very often: I predict this will change as she tries to appeal to a wider conservative audience. In fact, if we close out the 2010 elections without her pubicly referring to at least one of these three people: Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, or Friedrich Hayek, I'll be surprised. It will be funny to watch when it happens, because the chorus of liberals saying, "So she mentioned them, but she's still too stupid to understand what they're talking about." will just send another wave of support her way.
4) I do agree with you, though, that a lot of Palin's support comes from the fact that there is no one else stepping up to the plate. It is an age-old problem for conservatives: people who hate big government do not tend to want to get involved with trying to manage the biggest one in the world. That is why I am holding off full fledged support of Palin in hopes that somebody better will come along between now and 2012... but until then I am focused on the 2010 mid-terms and the truth is Palin can have a huge role in helping elect the types of Tea Party branded conservative Republicans I support.
5) Finally, you said this: "you are right that we liberals needs to be careful not to underestimate the extent of Palin's support base. There are, indeed, conservative professionals and intellectuals who find her an appealing figure." Yes, a few of those types like her too, but it is the huge swath of conservatives who exist in the cultural space between these people and the Archie Bunkers who really make up her support base; dispossessed college educated office drones who are now working blue collar jobs because they refuse to take unemployment pay; overworked and carreer-stalled insurance adjusters waiting for the economy to get better so they can find a different line of work; oilfield engineers; convenience store owner/operators.... these are the types of people I know who are Palin supporters, and none of them fit the closeminded anti-intellectual picture you present in your original post.
Eric - I don't doubt what you say. I'm sure that there are conservative intellectuals and even many thoughtful, critical thinking conservatives who find themselves attractive to Palin because they think she currently represents their best hope for wresting away power from liberals. Two points on this, though: (1) that is not the face of Palinism. The support you mention is most certainly there, but I think it is more by default (and with a healthy dose of skepticism). The very thoughtful conservatives I know (the ones who don't disdain an Ivy league education and who I know also find the ideological purity of Palin appealing at one level) are also very circumspect and quiet about defending her or jumping on the Palin bandwagon as that bandwagon is currently constructed. If I ask these people to explain the significance of the Katie Couric interview, for instance, they are honest when they shrug their shoulders in wonder. These are folks with conservative temperaments like David Frum, Ross Douthat, David Brooks, Peggy Noonan, etc., who are now vilified by those who represent the face of Palinism. Yes, there are smart people at RWN, including Melissa Clouthier and John Hawkins himself, but when it comes to Palin and the mere possibility of any intellectually based criticism of her, these otherwise smart people either lose their marbles and scream victim of elitist pretension like the rest of them, or they shrink into the realm of silence so as not offend the dominant manipulators of Palinism against the pretensions of thoughtful criticism.
But I will promise you this, if Palin refers to Friedman, Hayek, or Rand, I won't dismiss it as pandering drivel; but I will tell you this: I'd be very surprised if does so. It's the whole "boning up" idea, and someone who has never been curious about these things before is not likely to be seen as either genuine or independently-thoughtful about it in mid-life. For better or for worse, fairly or unfairly, she will come across as a creature molded in conservative thought (and thoughtfulness) by her Ivy-league trained intellectual puppetmasters. And I think the liberal response won't be what you think it will be, but rather to paint her as attempting to cross over into the realm of "elitism" and "establishment" conservatism that has made her brand. In her efforts to appeal to more thoughtful, intellectual conservative more explicitly, she will have to present herself as more like them. And I think she does that, if she even can do that, to her peril.
I can't deny that many, if not most, conservatives who support Palin are hypercritical-and often even in plain denial-when it comes to defending her (especially regarding the Couric interview), but that is different from being hostile to intellectualism itself. I'll even go so far as to say there are a lot of conservatives who are simply non-intellectual, i.e., they came into adulthood with a set of beliefs and feel no need to seriously examine other viewpoints (this also describes more than a few liberals I know, come to think of it). But again, non-intellectual and anti-intellectual are two different things.
They are down'right syllodomites them Palinites!
I mean, take a look at the "poetry" some are gleaning from her speeches:
"And the relevance to me
With that issue,
As we spoke
About Africa and some
Of the countries
There that were
Kind of the people succumbing
To the dictators
And the corruption
Of some collapsed governments
On the
Continent,
The relevance
Was Alaska's."
Uuuuhhhhmmmm errraaaahhhh ok'd'oh...
Post a Comment