Ok
I don't get it. Yesterday, since the five country music stations they
have here are intolerable, I was prompted to listen to Rush. Why is
it that the political and ideological right hate education? Rush
talked about experts are stupid and don't know what they are talking
about and that the average joe can determine for himself the truth if
he looks for it. I learned about that in college. It is the worst
part of the Enlightenment, the denial of authority besides individual
authority. It was the burning of these bridges that helped along the
French Revolution. Rush poses as a sans collete to encourage what the
Church has said is the worst tyranny man has devised for himself. And
it all boils down to the notion that educated people don't know what
they are talking about. Sure, one person's opinion should be taken
with a grain of salt, but when multiple people start saying there is
something happening, you should at least take it into consideration.
I fear that the conservatism of Chesterton with its ideals of
intellectual engagement has already fallen to the rabid rage of the
unwashed and uneducated masses that substitute intellect for the
idealization of the working class. I do not mean to dispossess the
third estate but rather put the third estate in its place. To say
that I am not better than another person because I have education is
irrational and inconsistent with the reality that the whole point of
education is to better the human being. There are orders to education
as well and I would--and could argue--that Liberal education properly
understood is the highest education and the most deserving of praise
but I digress. To say that Joe the Plumber has the same grasp on the
good for society as I do would be a farce anywhere except democracy.
I'll grant that this came to me as a FB
message; which format doesn't lend itself to elegant exposition. But
I can only reply to what is written, not what might have been at more
length.
1. Rush Limbaugh does not represent the
views of anything that might be called a unified “political and
ideological right,” if such a thing even existed. It is a typical
mistake among the mouth breathers who feel like Rachel Maddow and
Chris Hayes are intellectual heavyweights and who get their opinions
from the Comedy Channel. Rush's profession is to attract listeners
by talking about political and related topics. His point of view
obviously appeals more to conservatives than Progressives. His
reasons for that point of view may or may not be entirely rigorous;
and those who may agree with his position may have different reasons
for their opinions. There is probably no one who agrees with
everything he says. And his monologues have to be arresting enough to
hold his listeners attention. Since he doesn't get government
subsidies, he has to be more interesting than Diane Rheem. But I
don't have any interest in defending Rush. He can do that for himself
well enough. For some strange reason, the most successful talk radio
hosts are conservative. It could be that the sustained whine typical
of Progressive radio hosts is too tedious for anybody to listen for a
sustained period. It seems to me that the moderately successful
Leftist talkers are bloviating boors like Ed Schultx, who make Rush
and Mark Levin and even Glenn Beck seem like easy listening disc
jockeys or golf play-by-play announcers.
Why do conservatives hate education?
They don't, actually. Many of them have even been educated. But it
seems to me that anyone who really values education would be critical
of the way that it is organized in this country today. You do realize
that the education system in this country is based on questionable
Progressive Pragmatist philosophies from the early 20th
Century.
The current system is a. based on a
questionable philosophical foundation. b. designed for an entirely
different set of circumstances than exists today. c. has failed to a
great degree to return an adequate investment. d. is controlled by
nearly unaccountable bureaucrats, rather than by the parents of the
students it purports to serve. e. was designed and is used as a tool
to inculcate the “right” ideas into citizens. f. is in thrall to
a union which holds the pay and protection of its members to be more
important than the quality of education they provide to their
students.
A system that has all that going for it
deserves a modicum of criticism. Can you concieve of any other way
that education of children could be accomplished in this country that
would be an improvement on the current system? Of course you can. Is
there any chance of the system being truly modernized, improved or
replaced? Of course not.
None of this should be construed to be
a disparagement of teachers. There are many outstanding teachers.
They don't get paid commensurate with the importance of their
profession. My daughter-in-law and future-daughter-in-law are
teachers; my daughter intends to be one and my wife is one. Fair to
say that I love teachers.
I don't know what Rush said, but I
think it is also worth considering the difference between an
education and a degree; which leads to a reasonable skepticism
regarding experts. William F. Buckley once said, “I'd
rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400
people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty
of Harvard University.”
Thomas Jefferson would have agreed with
that. Woodrow Wilson (and John Dewey) would not have. Pragmatism and
Progressivism, which was built upon its theories, proposes that
problems can be fixed by experts with sufficient information. It
sounds good in theory, perhaps, but it hasn't really worked out in
practice. Not for want of trying over the last 100+ years. Jon Gruber
is an expert who thinks American citizens are stupid. But he
certainly was stupid to say it out loud while he was being recorded.
And even more foolish for thinking ObamaCare could ever work. Experts
are useful to a point.
And there are things, truths, if you like, that experts grasp that I
may never comprehend. The Fibonacci
sequence
or fourier
transforms,
for instance. However, despite Progressive beliefs to the contrary, experts cannot manage an organization as complex as a nation. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397131/davoss-destructive-elites-kevin-d-williamson/page/0/1
I think there are many, and by far the
most important, truths which are accessible to the average joe. I may
never be expert enough to fully grasp Aristotle's conception of the
good. But then there are experts in philosophy like Jacques Derrida,
who deconstructed good until it ceased to exist. So, experts, per se,
ought not be given any more credit than they are due. And when they
stray from their particular expertise, they should be given quite a
bit of skepticism.
In the end, Appeal to Authority is a
logical fallacy. The source of information is an important
consideration, but isn't dispositive. A thinking person has every
reason to evaluate the information on its face and reject it
regardless of the expertise of its source if it fails evaluation.
Also, deferring to an expert's opinion
seems to be a rather severe case of individual authority of the kind
you condemn. I share your concern over the atomization of society. It
is bad whether it is each one against every other one or each one
against the government. I choose as my expert in the matter, GKC
whose appeal was to that truly silent majority, the 'democracy of the
dead' which votes through tradition, custom and societal norms etc.
Received wisdom is no less wisdom because we received it from our
ancestors who at one time may not have been literate.
