|
July 03, 2008
Who are they? Part III
Who are who? They! The people who run our lives. While "they" are hard to define, I've always thought of them as one of those "I know it when I see it" sort of phenomena, although I've searched for definitions, noting that Herman Kahn characterized them as "a vast group of intellectuals" said to "suffer from the most intense anomie of all social groups": In becoming a mass profession, they open themselves to sharper criticism as a group because their average standards necessarily decline, their contacts with outsiders wither, they become less self-conscious as a stratum but more actively self-serving, and they make clear their belief that they should wield social power.Recalling the wise characterization of an elderly San Franciscan, I ventured that they might be called "the social people": They are everywhere, and you really don't want to get in trouble with them. Not if you want to avoid being hassled at your job, go about unmolested, not get targeted or audited by bureaucrats, or scolded at the local church groups, PTA meetings, or (for the wealthier and snobbier) even humiliation at smug cocktail parties and country clubs.That comes closer to defining them, but still... I'm always looking for more. So in another post ("But who are they? Part II"), I cited this observation of Dr. Helen that their behavior is so controlling as to be downright thuggish: ...rather than a bunch of "fat cats," most millionaires are just the opposite: people who worked, lived below their means and saved a lot of money. Or as one politician put it, people who "worked hard and played by the rules." All of us could learn from them. Jealous that they have not achieved this level of wealth, now many controlling types of people are scheming to take money from others through high tax rates that penalize the "shy millionaire" as much as the real "fat cats," whatever that means. Instead of scheming like a bunch of thugs, perhaps the government and those that approve of their thuggery should learn to be more like the shy millionaires by spending below their means, saving, and showing some class.I supplemented that with Robert James Bidinotto's view of "the Excuse-Making Industry" ....consists primarily of intellectuals in the social science establishment: the philosophers, psychological theorists, political scientists, legal scholars, sociologists, criminologists, economists and historians whose theories have shaped our modern legal system. It also consists of an activist wing of fellow-travelers: social workers, counselors, therapists, legal-aid and civilliberties lawyers, "inmate rights" advocates, "progressive" politicians and activists, and so on...That was in October. Yesterday, Glenn Reynolds linked Eric S. Raymond's marvelous post about a child who died because of a bricklayer's fear that if he saved her he'd be accused of child molesting. Reading through the comments, I found a link to yet another marvelous post (from British libertarian Sean Gabb) which I think really hit the nail on the head. (Bear in mind that while Gabb calls them the "Enemy Class," I'm sticking to just plain old "them" -- not so much out of bleeding-heartedness, but because I think many of "them" can grow out of being "them" much in the way that I did.) What I will call the Enemy Class exists in and around the public sector. It comprises the great majority of those administrators, lawyers, experts, educators and media people whose living is connected with the State. Its leading members are people like Anthony Giddens, Greg Dyke, Elspeth Howe, Mary Warnock, Polly Toynbee, Peter Mandelson, and others. They articulate and advance the interests of perhaps a million other people--from television producers and heads of executive agencies, down through the university lecturers and social workers and white collar bureaucrats, to the lowest grades of civil servant and local government officer. Add to the list all the racism awareness and anti-aids consultants and the workers in those non-government organisations that receive money and status from or via the State.Read it all. And weep. Once again, whatever happened to the separation of Church and State? Far from separating the two, these people have misused the concept by creating a monstrous hybrid -- in the form of state-sponsored faux spirituality with tentacles reaching into every last home. Enforced by priests who are not priests wielding a perverse sort of neotheocratic power, and by unelected bureaucrats wielding state power and quasi-state power. In terms of power and tyranny, the results are worse than anything which could be achieved by the power of either the church or the state standing alone. But it helps to know who they are. There but for the grace of the unknown went I. UPDATE: Link error corrected. (My thanks to Alan Kellogg for alerting me.) posted by Eric on 07.03.08 at 10:31 AM
Comments
One of your best. Happy Independence Day. dr kill · July 3, 2008 05:55 PM Thomas Sowell's term says it all. He calls them the "anointed." notaclue · July 3, 2008 09:15 PM That's the link you want for the ESR post Glenn linked to the other day. Alan Kellogg · July 3, 2008 10:32 PM For most of these people, the term "intellectuals" is probably inappropriate. Instead, we should bring back two older words: *clerks* (in the medieval sense) and *sophists* (in the Greek sense) david foster · July 4, 2008 03:32 PM We know who they are. The question is, "who the hell do they think they are?" Brett · July 4, 2008 04:31 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
July 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
July 2008
June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Special Code Pink encore presentation
Romeo Rush judgment of Swiftian panache? To bed without fireworks, you bad bad country! Who are they? Part III I'm sure this won't be my first disappointment.... The gun nuts next door.... Doggies for demolition truth Worthless Dotcomradery sacred grounds and sacrilegious objections
Links
Site Credits
|
|
They are similar to my Arts & Humanities Tribe (I have taken to calling them Clans at this point). They are generally allied with the Government Clan but separate. One of the reasons they have hated George Bush, in fact, is that he is from this clan but left, and when he came to governmental power did not bestow the requisite status upon the A&H Clan.
Though many of them are intelligent, and even more are educated, the A&H Clan's foundation is social. They are experts at sending and receiving social cues, and police each other primarily with social sanctions. When those are inadequate they move the government to create pressure to adhere to their social norms.
I can get carried away and write for hours on this. I grew up in that clan, but consider them poisonous bastards now.