In his younger days, Walter Lippmann wrote the following about Henry Ford.
buy temovate online buy temovate no prescription
Mr. Ford, as you are all no doubt aware, was staggeringly successful, wealthy, and nuts.
He devoted as much or more energy to spreading his ideals (a curious mixture of Jeffersonian pastoralism, pacifism, worship of industry, and rabid anti-Semitism) as he did to making cars. In hindsight, of course, we ask why someone with an 8th-grade education and innate engineering skills would think himself qualified to rebuild society and reshape Americans to conform to his theories. Said Lippmann:
We Americans have little faith in special knowledge, and only with the greatest difficulty is the idea being forced upon us that not every man is capable of doing every job. But Mr. Ford belongs to the traditions of self-made men, to that primitive Americanism which has held the theory that a successful manufacturer could turn his hand with equal success to every other occupation. It is this tendency in America which installs untrained rich men in difficult diplomatic posts, which puts businessmen at the head of technical bureaus of the government, and permits business men to dominate the educational policies of so many universities.
online pharmacy buy zoloft online no prescription pharmacyMr. Ford is neither a crank nor a freak; he is merely the logical exponent of American prejudices about wealth and success.
He wrote that about a century ago and almost nothing has changed in the interim. We still elect rich people who appoint other rich people to do jobs about which they know nothing on the unspoken assumption that anyone who has made (or worse, inherited) a lot of money must be good at everything. The part about appointing people to university boards of regents and trustees based on wealth is something that I've covered before and is a bigger problem than most people would imagine.
One thing that has changed, however, is that the ultra-wealthy no longer engage in the kind of utopian social engineering schemes that were all the rage around the turn of the century. It was hard to find a robber baron or other holder of great wealth who didn't have some crackpot idea about remaking society based on whatever pet cause he (or more rarely, she) happened to have: vegetarianism, spiritualism, Luddite leanings, socialism, free love, worship of the soybean, etc. Today a more skeptical society – more skeptical about some things, that is – would brand these people insane in a heartbeat. Imagine Henry Ford's lectures about International Jewry today or Bill Gates talking about building a utopian community where everyone farmed cassava and lived in group quarters. That would be…weird. Hell, it was already weird in Ford's time. Look at the way candy magnate Robert Welch's one-man anticommunist crusade, the John Birch Society, transitioned from a small but relevant force to a tiny fringe group of complete lunatics to see how attitudes toward the eccentric obsessions of the rich have changed over time.
Instead, today's rich try to normalize their efforts at social engineering by explicitly steering them toward politics. Electoral politics and governing in 1920 looked almost nothing like they do today, and the ultra-rich treated the political world as a minor sideshow compared to the almost limitless power of the oligarchy. Whether it's the Koch Brothers' economic and political brainwashing campaign or the Gates-Zuckerberg-Everyone Else heavy involvement in "education reform" and charter schools, the rich express the same impulse to remake society in a different manner today.
buy xifaxan online buy xifaxan no prescription
Some of it, certainly, is motivated by plain greed; lowering taxes, staying on top of wealthy-specific issues like the estate tax, and securing fat government contracts are all as important as ever to the people pouring money into the political process. Underlying it all, though, is that "primitive Americanism" Lippmann identified, the idea that he who is good at making money knows best about everything. That they've gotten more media savvy about how they do their paternalistic meddling under the guise of charitable giving or political activism does not change the motive.
Glen h says:
Not just America, Ed. Check out "Twiggy " Forest and his plan to 'reform' the Australian welfare system.
Misterben says:
Bam! Another terrific column.
Red Ruffansore says:
The flip side of this is the well-known
American expression of disdain for
shmahht guys:
"If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?"
Not only do many rich people think that they
would naturally rise to the top in any Rawlsian
reshuffling of society, many poor but ambitious
Americans like the idea that each of them could
become rich. At the time Lippmann wrote that
about H. Ford, the 2nd part might have been true.
c u n d gulag says:
Prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment – a little over 100 years ago – and the election of Senators by popular vote, you had political machines installing their state's US Senators.
A rich person could literally buy a US Senate seat, if he so chose.
That was passed to help end corruption.
It didn't. But it might have lessened it.
And nowadays, the really rich don't want to do the day-to-day work of the Senate.
Instead, they back some sycophantic bobo who'll get rich while IN the US Senate.
And the Citizens United decision only makes the situation worse.
Xynzee says:
Given that the country was "founded" by rich merchants—hey just realised that it's never crossed my mind how these guys became so wealthy in the first place, inheritance?—what could we expect?
The myth of the "self made man" was a part of the matrix frontier beginning.
Runt says:
It's interesting that he mentions untrained diplomats. We Europeans appoint experienced career diplomats as ambassadors, and in return, the US sends wealthy donors who frequently give the impression that they would have difficulty finding their new posting on a map. Imagine how flattered we feel…
jestbill says:
Backwards.
EVERYBODY thinks he has been granted the One True Vision and wants to Change the World in his own (idealized) image.
(That's one reason a bunch of people will vote for the guy they would like to meet for a beer.)
People who have money are able to force the rest of us to endure their demonstrations–people who have money select each other to hold offices that advance their pet projects.
"Do not help your kids with their homework: the purpose of homework is to teach humility." (Quote stolen from someone sometime.)
Barry says:
"Some of it, certainly, is motivated by plain greed; lowering taxes, staying on top of wealthy-specific issues like the estate tax, and securing fat government contracts are all as important as ever to the people pouring money into the political process. Underlying it all, though, is that "primitive Americanism" Lippmann identified, the idea that he who is good at making money knows best about everything. "
I think that over 90% of it is plain greed – note for example that the school 'reform' movement has almost entirely turned into a movement for 'privatizing' and looting public education. There is little real concern shown by these guys for results.
Skipper says:
Imagine Henry Ford's lectures about International Jewry today
Today, we get lectures about Muslims — and "illegals." Same thing.
As far as ambassadors are concerned, you don't become an ambassador for simply being rich, you also have to be a major fundraiser for the president. This is why nominees for ambassadors include an ambassador to France who doesn't speak French, and ambassador to Argentina who has never been to Argentina, and an ambassador to Norway who just insulted one of Norway's ruling parties.
Skipper says:
Whoops. I didn't mean that Muslims and so-called "illegals" were the same thing, but that the racist lectures were the same now as they were then.
Major Kong says:
Since our concept of diplomacy seems to be "Tell 'em how it's gonna be", we probably don't consider ambassadors to be all that important.
Just send a couple of wise-guys straight out of central casting:
"Nice country yous got here. It'd be a shame if something was to happen to it".
John Danley says:
Goldilocks perks for the monolithic well-to-dos. I see why Mr. Welch specialized in "Sugar Daddies."
JohnR says:
It's not just wealth, you know. I've long since lost track of the number of people I've met who think that being an expert at something makes them an expert at anything.
gnarltrombone says:
I'm not a politician.
jon says:
So you're saying Donald Trump shouldn't run the CDC?
Robert says:
My favorite twist on this meme: "if you're so rich, why aren't you smart?"
Alas, they think they are smart. And the smart at one thing, smart at others – I'm sure Dr. Ben Carson is a great neurosurgeon, but great sweaty warthogs is he not well informed about some other things.
Nunya says:
The universal truth of becoming wealthy and powerful is that people stop informing you when you make a mistake. After years of hearing that they can do no wrong, they begin to believe it.
If there were ever a reason for preventing dynastic wealth and privilege, I think that is it.
Kaleberg says:
Don't knock all of the rich. FDR's cabinet was full of wealthy sorts, and they did all sorts of good stuff. Joseph Kennedy was a crooked stock manipulator who built the SEC and reformed the Merchant Marine. (Yes, he sucked as our ambassador to England, but that was later.) There were a host of others among his dollar a year men. Hell, FDR himself was quite wealthy.
If you want to change society for the better, it doesn't hurt to have the wealthy on your side. Not everyone scorns the baser rungs by which he or she ascended.
Dick Nixon says:
Wordly success is is, of course a tangible sign of God's favor. When God has favored someone, who are we to dispute him/her?
Max Weber?
mtraven says:
I take it you are not acquainted with Peter Thiel.
Nunya says:
Kaleberg, the sense of noblese oblige has long since vanished in America and England. Taxing
these people into just kinda rich is our best bet.
comrade oz says:
Sadly the opposite is also true. Anyone in the USA who has been involved in a scandal, especially one with sexual implications, is immediately cast to the scrap pile. A perfect example is former Sen John Edwards.
karlo says:
One of the things that bothers me about the current "reform" of education, esp. the K-12 variety, is the almost overt nature of turning it over to commercial interests. For example, Jeb Bush. When I was in Florida the Jebber started taking money out of educational system of Florida (K-whatever since he gutted the Universities, too, but that is a different story). He lowered taxes, and local increments couldn't make up the difference, while instituting the No Child Left Behind (a pet project of his brother, the President). Since there wasn't any money left in the school systems to do this testing, he started using some private industry (Think Pearson) to do the standardized testing, funded straight from Tallahassee. His giant vision of an end result was to have every child in Florida educated remotely from home by distance education, using a commercial enterprise with one person teaching thousands. Said system to be run by a commercial entity in which he had some investment skin. Once the Jebber was out of office it was "discovered" that he had personal interests (that's investment money to those of you not following along) in many of the education companies doing business with the state.
I think that Gates and the other rich guys have some enlightenment they want to see happen. Problem is they don't know jack about education. Far as I know none has ever taught a class (other than reading some book about goats to a kindergarten class), but they do think a) technology is the answer b) they are smarter than everyone else c) how smart do you have to be to teach anyway? and d) there is money to be made in the endeavor somehow. So excuse me if I'm a little sceptical about all the education reform that is run by rich guys (or guys like the Jebber who have already feathered their nests that way, but want more).