Justin Swan calls out the Wall Street Journal’s editorial about the feckless Democrats and their lockstep opposition and hysterical hollering to Betsy DeVos. Is it a case of biting the hand that feeds you? Perhaps. But turn to Dan Henninger to get the better sense of the politics of the DeVos nomination. This is about the nature of the urban (and largely minority) school districts, where the teachers play such an important role. In Michigan, it’s more than that, too.
Ever since the days of John Engler there’s been this blood feud between the MEA and the GOP — if anything it’s been a liability to our state, promoting overreaction on both sides. BDV has been part of that in many ways, particularly in her role as an activist, a very active activist. There are other dimensions, too. Her engagement with GRPS is not something to pass by, and that accounts for much of the relative silence of leadership. It’s less bought silence than known collaboration.
It’s no surprise that the President follows the same path as he had in business. After 50+ years, you go with what has worked for you. The challenge is learning that the skills that served one so well elsewhere, the entrepreneurial, relational, and certainly the hyperbolic are insufficient for leading a large enterprise like the national government. It is something of the distinction Max Weber makes between charismatic and bureaucratic leadership.
Two takes on the challenging first week reveal problems.
While D.G. Hart’s review covers the core notion, that environmentalism is a product of Calvinism, or more specifically the views of the Puritans and the American Presbyterians. This is a push-back to the long-standing critique by Lynn White Jr. (“The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis”) that asserted that Christian (and especially Calvinist) views of the Genesis notion of dominion and the general dis-enchantment of nature led to its exploitation.
Hart wonders if Stoll and White are looking at the same Christianity. In doing so, he also ponders the role of religion and the degree to which religious affections touch policy.
At the same time, contemporary scholars have good reasons for discounting the influence of religion in peoples’ lives. Sometimes religion is not the sole motivation for a position or policy; at other times, circumstances lend themselves more readily to taking actions based religious idealism. Creating national parks in remote territories is one thing, but regulating the oil industry at a time when the nation’s economy depends on fossil fuel is an altogether different challenge that religion may not happily resolve.
The mystery may be solved by considering the broader structures of Reformed thought. Its high theology places an emphasis on the sovereignty of God; historically this has repeatedly walked over into broader understandings, ones emphasizing immanence. This intellectual deterioration clearly feeds the Transcendentalists, John Muir and others. The Immanent God, is the shadow of the Reformed, Electing God. A second aspect, answering the second part of Hart’s quote above, is the role of Presbyterians in shaping the American regulatory state, with its notion of law and common good. The regulatory apparatus developed at the turn of the 19th Century (see Theodore Roosevelt) is deeply grounded culturally and philosophically in the notion of ordered human relationships and the desire to build for the common good. It is the Reformed thought’s emphasis on the corporate and public dimension of religious life which feeds and shapes the emerging regulatory State.
I would hate to imagine what would happen if we applied the same kind of sliding scale to the many people who have received job offers by way of their familial relationships. If that happened, there aren’t many people in finance who would escape the accusation that their hiring was the byproduct of influence peddling.
Oh, the horror.
While one may sympathize with the overall thrust, the essay nonetheless presents a basic defense of hiring within one’s social class. This is deeply anti-meritocratic, as he notes
Lines on a résumé can’t substitute for certain qualities.
That would be contacts.
The overall point is this is one more story about the rise of the plutocrats (aka the One Percent). With the rise of great wealth, the earlier standards of meritocracy get pushed aside. Essays like this knowingly or not, are about the raising of the ladder.
Fergus Bordewich reviews a rather interesting book by Jefferson Morley, Snow Storm in August (Doubleday, 2012), about an incident in ante-bellum Washington. In the clash of slavery and the abolitionists, Bordewich comments
The author rightly underscores the fact that, throughout the antebellum period, “the need to defend the slave system overwhelmed the protections written into the Bill of Rights.” In Francis Scott Key’s case against (abolitionist Rueben) Crandall, the slave-owning district attorney charged, for instance, that the mere possession of abolitionist publications was “always indictable” because they were intended to “produce excitement, tumult, and insurrection.” In other words, even white men were not to be allowed to own, read or distribute documents that offended slave owners.
The home library as theatre. Of course. The Wall Street Journaltells about the latest in designer rooms: your library. Such a move reflects the ambivalent approach to books and reading generally. As the article makes clear, these are generally not libraries assembled from personal shopping, but bought by the foot. (Quick! give me something in white Venetian vellum! Jane Austen in pink! matching covers!)
Not surprising, the typical customer is “the 35- to 55-year-old hedge fund manager, Hollywood mogul or technology executive.” Of course. Books have always had their place as aesthetic objects and even as decoration. Like other aspects of conspicuous consumption, these new rooms function as simply one more signifier of success, and to a lesser extent who one wants to hang with.
Such rooms are oddly lonely. The library — the collection of books on the far wall and flowing over my file cabinet– represents a set of conversations, voices. It is not their looks, but the words inside, the potential to spark something new, the recollection of something already (well) said. They hold and are held, not as information but as companions.
And at the end of the day? Well they do it for the kids “I hear a lot that homeowners want their children to be familiar with the great authors,” says one book dealer. Osmosis, perhaps, but only if you open them. If these children of privilege are like any other, likely as not they will be pulling down the books for the cool images (I couldn’t get enough of the Time-Life WWII books, myself), or the sexy parts, or for that matter something completely random. You open a book, and find that some one else, some where else, some how knoew what your were thinking and dreaming.
It is condescending to treat people who have less education or money as less morally accountable than we are. We should stop making excuses for them that we wouldn’t make for ourselves. Respect those who deserve respect, and look down on those who deserve looking down on.
And Paul VanderKlay responds
Now of course we’re into our “ought” voice. I’ve been thinking a lot about stigma, shame and culture lately. Wish I had more to say.
The entire shame thing carries with it an assumption of a common culture. Jonathan Haidt‘s work illumines how different our actual cultures are; what binds us is the sacred. Now here is the interesting aspect, Murray assumes that these working class folks belong to his tribe (and in his book, his “Fishtown” is rather ethnically or at least racially homogeneous). Given his other work, such a position could be reasonably read as a kind of lament for the decline of white (maybe ethnic) culture.
Also, the emergence of a “why bother” culture, independent of its origin, would seem to reflect a certain conviction about economic stasis: it’s same as it ever was, thus one does not change. The driver of shame is aspiration. But what if you have the sense that things are basically stacked against you? then the culture of poverty takes over. There is an obvious point of engagement for the Church here: not to mark the shame, but to claim the possibility. Might even be a bit of the political there, too but I’ll leave it for now.