Let me know whenever I decohere.

Thomas, thanks for mentioning TR’s book. Some of the other presidents also could also be said to have had a career as an intellectual, and I wouldn’t insist on my Wilson-only classification. I’m not sure how applicable our present-day notions of what makes an intellectual are to the 19th century, but Lincoln was an astonishingly gifted man by the standards of any time.

Excellent point. As one “born in Apostasy”, I definitely know where you’re coming from.

I remember a quote from a Green Lantern graphic novel: Oa [The home of the Guardians] was not actually at the Center of the Universe, but it was considered impolite to say so.”

The OP made me think.

–Interesting dynamic. There are all kinds of flaws with our country’s ruling class, but before we get too enthused about how this country would be better if it were run by people like us and our Church leaders **nodding at st1305**, I think we should explore the possibility that the Church, with its ever-growing premium on loyalty to the correlated status quo, suffers from this same kind of negative self-selection as well. One could re-write the quote in the OP like this (and maintain the same balance of applicability and inflammatory rhetoric):

“Nothing has set the Church class apart, defined it, made it conscious of itself, given it whatever coherence it has, so much as the members’ insistence that people other than themselves are righteously and hence otherwise humanly inferior. Persons who were brought up to believe themselves as worthy as anyone, who manage their own lives to their own satisfaction, naturally resent members of the Church who say that the issues of eternal life are too complex for any but themselves. Most are insulted by the members’ dismissal of opposition as mere “laziness and disobedience” — an imputation of unworthiness— while others just scoff at the claim that the members’ correlated Church-speak demonstrates superior spirituality. A few ask the fundamental question: Since when and by what right does righteousness trump human equality? Moreover, if the members of the Church are so righteous, why have they made spiritual life worse?”

Interestingly, I would place Wilson at the top of the list of worst twentieth-century presidents. (And before anyone goes “aha, another Glenn Beck foamer,” I despised Wilson before either Beck or Jonah Goldberg made it cool.) His intellectual work — his output as an academic — was explicitly aimed at discrediting the American founding and the principle of constitutionally limited government.

Where public intellectuals often go wrong, is in the following logic: “I, and those of my intellectual stature, are far more intelligent than 99% of the people; therefore, entrusting smart me with decisions rather than letting the dumb 99 guys make decisions, will result in smarter decisions being made.” What this logic misses is that a large group of average intellects — with their different ideas left to compete with and inform each other — is almost always superior to the mental output of one really smart guy, who often lacks any mechanism for calling his attention to his mistakes.

This is “the wisdom of crowds,” the price-setting genius of markets, and the logic behind Mosiah 29:26: “Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.”

BTW, I’d probably add Theodore Roosevelt, who wrote a first-class history of the War of 1812, to the “intellectual” list. And I would probably name Abraham Lincoln — perhaps the least traditionally “intellectual” American president — as the wisest.

I see where you’re coming from regarding the universities, but look at your own list in comment 20. There isn’t a top science school in the list of top universities. (Notice conspiculously the absense of MIT which is physically located just down the road from Harvard.) Stanford is probably the closest thing to a science school in the list, and if the University of Chicago ever moves up to the top of the list, it won’t be because of its connections to Fermilab.

The top schools are heavily endowed; Columbia owned most of the property of Morningside Heights surrounding its campus when I lived there, and it wasn’t for student housing. Just because the money doesn’t go to the ostensible purpose of the university doesn’t mean the money isn’t there. (That’s ok. Public schools don’t primarily exist to educate students either, despite the efforts of individual teachers and principals to teach despite the institutional obstacles.)

Alternatively, there is a great deal of money available for science that SERVES the political objectives of the ruling class. But SERVES is the key word. Kennedy created NASA in competition to Russian military programs. A complex of facilities and industrial plants was cultivated nationally to ensure people have the maximum stake in the program’s continuation. When the original purposes of the rulers are met, the complex is diverted to new priorities or given makework to maintain the patronage. Sometimes the makework actually produces good discoveries. (You should have seen all the internal agency politics as the national labs in the nuclear weapons complex scrambled to find new missions when Russia’s political control collapsed and we were no longer racing to produce more nukes.)

Religion plays the same role of SERVING the class. Democrats have one set of religious servants; Republicans a competing set of religious servants. So do business and labor leaders play SERVANT roles, which is why contributions from those groups to political candidates shift so dramatically as the power within the ruling class swings from party to party. But it swings WITHIN the ruling class.

Similarly, he characterizes the “ruling class” as (in shorthand terms) anti-religion, anti-family, pro-union, etc. I don’t think there is any way to reconcile his characterization with, say, the 108th and 109th Congresses (2003-2007), or the GW Bush presidency, (which he does criticize on other grounds), or for that matter any number of political trends over the last 30 years. Can’t he remember who was in office five years ago, or does he think Denny Hastert and Ted Stevens were fighting against religion and traditional families, and for labor unions, or what?

He doesn’t seem to have any real insight to impart. If you don’t like the humanities, or David Brooks, or people who say “happy holidays”, or any number of his other bugaboos, you may enjoy his zeal in implicating them in much larger and deeper problems. But if you want to understand those problems better I think his article’s main value is as an example of how an eagerness to confirm preconceptions compromises his ability to see the whole picture.

I think your impressions of the first two pages of the article is fairly accurate. But if you stuck with it, I think you’d see he’s not saying one side good, one side bad; he’s saying one side maturely formed, the other side now forming in reaction and looking for a vehicle to represent it.

It is the emergence of this “up-down” axis of the “ruling party” versus the “country party” he suggests will increasingly shape American politics (rather than the current “right-left” alignment), without predicting which side will emerge with how much relative power, or saying which side is good or bad. He is forceful in saying that the interests of the “country party” can not long go unrepresented without serious consequences for political stability.

Although he does not make the comparison directly, he’s really talking about the parallels between the patrician and pleibian classes in Rome. It’s not clear that either class there was better than the other. The pleibians forced their way to share power through strikes (secessions) without an aristocracy, but once in power, they proceeded to develop their own aristocracy, just as the patricians originally had done.

Analogues to the BofM are, of course, my own.

I agree with the point that we sin as individuals, not as a class, but some particular form of temptation may still be more enticing to one civilization than to another.

As you recommended, I had a look at Codevilla’s article, and I can see now that my comment is rather tangential to what he has to say.

I can’t say I liked the article, as you thought I might. I think he and I share a view that the public interest does not appear to carry a lot of weight in guiding our government’s recent actions. However, his detailed analysis seems to be just a reflection of his own resentments and preconceptions.

Here, I can write like that, too. I can inform you that mainstream Americans feel unrepresented by the two major parties, although the core of the problem is the party I don’t support. By the way, when columnists like David Brooks, Tom Friedman, and Angelo Codevilla purport to tell you what mainstream Americans think, it’s just schlock sociology. Some wealthy Americans, associated with ideas I dislike, concentrate in parts of the country that are just not living up to American ideals, unlike other wealthy Americans who are no cause for concern. Entry to the group I dislike is based on pure cronyism and ideological conformity. They’re a lot like the communists, and also a lot like the fascists. I think that more or less covers the first couple pages. Feel free to fill in the blanks with whichever end of the left-right spectrum works best for you.

This is not the place for a point by point argument with Codevilla. However, I’d like to suggest that his general approach is unsound. We’re all prone to biases in the way we think about sociological out-groups, and we notice when an outsider says something like “the Mormons are all alike, and their actions are motivated by their bad attitudes about (fill in the blank)”. It’s less natural to notice when we’re the outsider and the attitude is our own. But I suggest that if I get to the point of thinking there are two types of people: good (who agree with me), and bad (who don’t), and that all our nation’s problems would be solved if the bad ones were swept away, then I need to reconsider, with some skepticism, my reasons for that belief.

I once maneuvered, successfully, to take over the management of a group at work, to put an end to an unacceptable and abusive situation. I think I knew what needed to be done, but lacked the skill to do it, and I ended up serving as a caretaker I could be eased out and replaced by an outside hire; I went back to my pre-management role. Scaling up to the national level, even if it were true that what the nation needs is someone who agrees with me, that would not be *all* it needed. Someone with the right opinions but no ability to get results is pretty useless, and the right opinions (whatever that means) are undoubtedly a lot easier to find than the leadership skill to act on them effectively.

This does raise an interesting question about how you warn people when you think they’re in danger in a way that actually persuades rather than drives them away from safety.

And if you feel you’ve done so in the best way you know how — and they still don’t see what you see — what do you do? (MH in particular will recognize this statement: “but still, it moves.”)

How does the one who sees avoid the trap of violating the agency of others, which seems to be important to the state of the seer’s soul?

Obama did attend the Washington Mystics game today with his daughter, sitting ground level courtside.

Which made me wonder: if a player starts to dive for a loose ball, does the Secret Service have to tackle her? Glad it wasn’t a close game.

That was a confession; and, with a confession comes the genuine desire to change. If I am to persuade any one to my conservative ways the button pushing has to stop. On behalf of the admins accept my apology.

The comments here and hence forth are not intended to push buttons. You may consider those who have strong opposition to Obama as extreme. If Benson’s remarks weren’t written 40 years ago, you would think it was directed right at the Obama administration.

You might like the book The Politics Of Obedience The Discourse Of Voluntary Servitude, you can find the pdf, audio, and actual paper book at Mises Institute website (pdf and audio are free). It’s one of my favorites on politics. If you don’t believe in voluntarism (anarchy) now you will be after reading it. A good analysis was done by Murray Rothbard here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard78.html

In the book the 5000 Year Leap by Cleon Skousen (I haven’t read it yet, I did read the Making of America though) Skousen says, “The most promising method of securing a virtuous and morally stable people is to elect virtuous leaders.” If that’s what it takes then maybe we should throw out all the “leaders” and just live in civil society without them. I honestly think the smaller the government the easier it is for people to be righteous, so, maybe without government at all, we would be able to maintain a righteous people better? I know this contradicts most gospel teachings but it sure sounds good!

st1305, I know you’re new here. There are plenty of people who come here just to pick fights (or as you say “push buttons.”) We seem to have problems with both highly liberal and highly conservative commenters. In the past few months, the admins here have really tried to make an effort to keep this place from turning into a food fight in a junior high cafeteria. While it may be fun to push buttons, I will tell you that many get turned off by button pushing, or “getting under liberals skin to watch their reactions”.

Here at MM, we really don’t like to censor. We welcome controversial topics, but we don’t like sophomoric button pushing. We try to tackle subjects that other Mormon themed blogs are scared to discuss. We’re really trying to make this a site for thoughtful dialogue, not button pushing. I hope you understand, and will try for a more mature form of debate.

I don’t plan to address President Benson’s remarks specifically in my post, and I don’t really care if you want to go there on this post. I will let you know that I am planning on researching church leaders comments (including Pres Benson) on the Civil Rights Movement, but I am not prepared to write intelligently about it for probably 2 months. (I do try to do a bit of research on things before posting.) So if you want to tangle on Bensonite politics (with me), you’ll have to wait for now. Perhaps someone else will be happy to engage you (without pushing buttons, I hope.) I do have a schedule of posts planned, so I hope you’ll forgive my slowness in tackling certain subjects until I am more conversant in them. I will check into your link. I am sure there is some great information there that I will find agreement with. (I must admit that I don’t understand how your quotes relate to our conversation, unless you are tying the Roman empire with Obama. While there is some truth to the idea that Romans cared too much about sports, Obama is trying to break the BCS. If you’re a football fan, that can’t be a bad thing.)

In that landmark address, he quoted C.S. Lewis (I’ll paraphrase) saying it’s not how much you have, but how much MORE you have compared to your neighbors. If everyone used bureaucratic language, and could handle life’s complexities, would that affect your feelings of superiority?

You should know me better than that by now. I was trying to be funny with my first two lines. Also, I love to push buttons. It is wrong I know, but so much fun. Sometimes I just take a position to see how well I can defend it (Parker post on Anal Sex) and other times I just like getting under liberals skin to watch their reactions (Alice Cooper). I don’t give a flying freak about Rosanne Barr. In this case I am totally serious. This talk by President Benson is right on the mark and is not contrary to Elder Brown, who was also one of 12 Apostles.

I’m not sure how to take this. We’re you going for irony?

Ahh, dueling general authorities. It can be a fun game. Are you saying Hugh B Brown should have kept his mouth shut as he was just about to begin his famous speech titled “Profile of a Prophet”?

Hey I’m proud of my humility. Oh, and tell Hugh B Brown to listen to the prophet. I guess when he died President Benson wasn’t the Prophet, but he was one of only 12 Apostles on the earth.

I have read your post in your website. Before posting this I challenge you to read President Bensons talk Watchman Warn the Wicked. If a true Prophet can call them wicked then it is right by me. What’s more, any man that quotes Ronald Reagan in his speech is for sure a true prophet. Rather than read this talk, I would challenge you to quote portions of his talk. I would be glad to prepare them. It is so appropriate for today. If only we and our parents had listened. It is one of those Noah and the flood comparisons.

The talk is found here:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=9a1cd2b9ae76b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Some of the things I would include are:

In the crisis through which we are now passing, we have been fully warned. This has brought forth some criticism. There are some of us who do not want to hear the message. It embarrasses us. The things which are threatening our lives, our welfare, our freedoms are the very things some of us have been condoning. Many do not want to be disturbed as they continue to enjoy their comfortable complacency.

How strong is our will to remain free—to be good? False thinking and false ideologies, dressed in the most pleasing forms, quietly—almost without our knowing it—seek to reduce our moral defenses and to captivate our minds. They entice with bright promises of security, cradle-to-grave guarantees of many kinds. They masquerade under various names, but all may be recognized by one thing—one thing they all have in common: to erode away character and man’s freedom to think and act for himself.

Too long have too many Americans, and people of the free world generally, stood by as silent accessories to the crimes of assault against freedom—assault against basic economic and spiritual principles and traditions that have made nations strong.

“Military service was an obligation highly honored by the Romans. Indeed, a foreigner could win Roman citizenship simply by volunteering for service in the legions of Rome. But, with increasing affluence and opulence, the young men of Rome began avoiding this service, finding excuses to remain in the soft and sordid life of the city. They took to using cosmetics and wearing feminine-like hairdo’s and garments, until it became difficult, the historians tell us, to tell the sexes apart.
“Among the teachers and scholars was a group called the Cynics whose number let their hair and beards grow, and who wore slovenly clothes, and professed indifference to worldly goods as they heaped scorn on what they called ‘middle class values.’
“The morals declined. It became unsafe to walk in the countryside or the city streets. Rioting was commonplace and sometimes whole sections of towns and cities were burned.
“And, all the time, the twin diseases of confiscatory taxation and creeping inflation were waiting to deliver the death blow.
“Then finally, all these forces overcame the energy and ambition of the middle class.
“Rome fell.

Rome fell for the following reasons:

1. The undermining of the dignity and sanctity of the home, which is the basis of human society.
2. Higher and higher taxes and the spending of public monies for free bread and circuses for the populace.
3. The mad craze for pleasure, sports becoming every year more and more exciting and brutal.
4. The building of gigantic armaments when the real enemy was within the decadence of the people.
5. The decay of religion—faith fading into mere form, losing touch with life, and becoming impotent to warn and guide the people.

Yes, I’m definitely the .4759826 of a physicist when it comes to changing a light bulb.

I think there is a third position that shows the subtleness of the asymmetry: X is smarter than Y; Y is smarter than X, or SMARTNESS DOES NOT MATTER IN CONTROLLING ANOTHER PERSON.

I guess you have to wait for 3 light globes to go out before you can change one of them.

Codevilla’s point (I think you’ll like the article) is that what the “ruling class” NOW correlates with is ONLY continued connection to dogmas of and patronage from government, however it arose originally. He specificly contrasts it with the French system, where admittance comes from passing exams that are (usually?) graded blindly. The ruling class can now raise up on a whim, and smash down on a whim.

Given the population of America, what are the odds that either George Bush or Barak Obama were among the few thousand smartest people in America who took slots in the Ivy League? And does anyone remember anything Gerald Ford did as an undergrad that would warrant selection to the Ivy League other than play center on the University of Michigan football team?

It’s one thing to decry pride, but when we start saying things like “all intellectuals” or “all politicians” or “all of the government” are prideful or sinning, we’re falling into the same trap. Notice when people make these arguments, they say things like “who gave x the right to tell me what to do?” Implied within that statement is the same argument that the offending party makes – I’m smarter than _you_ and you should listen _me_. It’s a little like the pot calling the kettle black.