Victor Davis Hanson on the American desire to have it both ways:
Among elites there is almost a “Don’t touch or disturb that!” mantra. The law of the hothouse orchid reigns. Once our grubby ancestors created our infrastructure, we wish sometimes to ridicule and — use — it, less often to leave anything better behind for anyone else.
We want all the dividends of industrial society, but an 18th century wilderness at the same time. . . .
The redwood deck is beloved, not the falling coast redwood tree; kitchen granite counters are de rigueur, not the blasting at the top of the granite mountain; the Prius is a badge of honor, not the chemical plant that makes its batteries; we now like stainless steel frigs, but hate steel’s coke, and iron ore, and electricity lines; arugula is tasty, not the canal that brings water 400 miles to irrigate it; I support teacher unions and -studies courses in the public schools, but not with my Ivy-League bound children.
At the other end of the social spectrum, the underclass seems to be growing. . .
It is taboo to ask our failing youth a simple question, “What exactly have you done the last month to ensure your birthright to the world’s most sophisticated lifestyle propped up by advanced math, science, social stability, and political tranquility?”
It other words, our elite is becoming more elite and refined, while our non-elite is becoming more rough around the edges. But they share a disturbing commonality: both expect something that they are not willing to invest in.
(Via: Gene Veith)
March 9th, 2010 | 1:54 pm
Right. Only Hanson is neo-con militarist who thinks too much for the Military Industrial Complex is never enough. OBTW, he and his neo-con pals have never wanted to raise taxes to pay for their Imperialist Wars to Nowhere.
Free Lunch crowd versus the Free War crowd with a lot of overlap between them.
Hanson has nothing interesting to say. Pick your poison.
March 9th, 2010 | 2:57 pm
Steve, Do the words ad hominem mean anything to you? Even assuming arguendo that everything you say about Hanson is true (which, by the way, I don’t concede) that does not invalidate his argument. Not only that, the fact (assuming it is a fact) that “neocons” (whatever they are) want to conduct wars without paying for them only proves Hanson’s point, even if Hanson is one of them. If a smoker tells you to quit smoking or you may get emphasema or lung cancer, he may be a hypocrit. He is also right. You probably have a brain. Try using it instead of spouting DailyKos talking points.
March 9th, 2010 | 3:59 pm
Re: Fred
Fred, your points are well taken. However the Daily Kos is not my cup of tea. And ad hominem? Sure, it means calling a spade a spade.
My blatant point is that neo-cons like Hanson have been totally delegitimized by their inconsistencies. They really can’t speak with authority about anything. Not that the mainstream Left has any legitimacy either.
It’s time a lot of those guys just went away and are replaced by some with nuts and bolts uncorrupted honesty.
P.S. I do have a brain, and guys like Hanson make it hurt with their incongruities.
March 9th, 2010 | 6:25 pm
Following up on what both Steve and Fred say above, I think Hanson is very selective in his accusations of hypocrisy and failure to contribute to the sustenance of our society and civilization. In his essay (I read the full piece), he sets up two straw men – the “elite” and the “underclass”. Like most stereotypes, there is an underlying element of truth which the proponent of the stereotype distorts and simplifies in order to prop up a preconceived conclusion. Most such straw man arguments, including Hanson’s, are designed to place the blame for some set of problems on some “other” – someone or something who is not “us”. While this critique of Hanson’s argument may seem pedantic or obvious, my real frustration with these types of arguments (on both the “left” and the “right”) is that they drown out attempts to look at our problems at a deeper level that could make all of us uncomfortable to the extent that it would implicate “all” (or almost all) of “us”. Not only do these types of arguments by themselves suck up much of the oxygen of our public discourse (if “discourse” is even the right word), they create a form of attack and counter-attack in which the response to a stereotype is a counter stereotype. To the extent that the media try to referee this they do so, more often than not, simply by trying to give (somewhat) equal time or space to the dueling stereotypes.
In Hanson’s case, he wants “us” to place the blame on the boogyman above and the boogyman below. Since this is a Christian/Catholic blog, I feel free to note that Hanson’s evocation of the “Eloi” and the “Morlocks” comes from H.G. Wells’ “The Time Machine”. Wells’ worldview was hardly Christian. He was a misanthropic, social Darwinist believer in eugenics. Yes, he had some valid points, in particular regarding the dangers of the class extremes in the England of his time, but his underlying philosophy was very bleak and deterministic. He would have been happy to have the martian invaders kill off most of humanity in “The War of the Worlds”.
In Hanson’s case, I think he avoids the real culprit – or something that is at least closer to the real culprit – the increasing shift in our ethos from one of sustenance and production to one of consumption. Or, to try to be more precise, the increasing sophistication and dominance of a commercial culture which strikes at the roots of almost all other sources of deeper meaning and purpose. (Try to say that ten times fast, “sigh”)
I believe we are (almost) all implicated in this culture of commercialism, wittingly or not. One of the fundamental premises of this culture is the double standard which Hanson decries in his article. We are all trained to want things better, faster, cheaper, newer and to feel like chumps if we don’t aspire to that. We are trained to want our MTv (an ’80′s reference), to want our cake and eat it with strawberry ice cream swirls on top. A lot of us are troubled by the sense that we are ignoring the hidden costs of this culture, the damage to our relationships, our souls and our physical environment, but this same culture is very good at humoring us, distracting us and turning ourselves against our own selves and others. It takes a certain effort of will not to drive to the Wal Mart at the edge of (or just outside) town with the expansive, convenient parking, stock up on cheap stuff and trundle back to wherever one lives in the sprawl. I do not, by the way, think Wal Mart is the source of all evil in the world – I just use it as an example. We all have our pet bugaboos. Just as Hanson gets torqued at the follies of (some of) the rich and (some of) the poor, I get torqued off by huge, new chrome plated pick up trucks that are obviously not used as working vehicles (i.e., no dirt and no tools in the back). But, who am I to criticize someone else’s consumer choice, right?
The various movements and philosophies that try to bring more into balance the costs of both production and consumption, such as crunchy conservatism, intentional simplicity, sustainability or fair trade are, to some extent, accommodated by the market, but they are, by and large dismissed by the “mainstream” for being either marginal or “elite”.
I give Hanson credit for saying the “elite” should invest in composting toilets. Would he be willing to go further and demand of operators of large animal confinement facilities that they invest in something similar for their manure, even if it requires a long-term investment of time and money?
If the market and consumption comprise one of our great idols, then how do we turn away from it without propping up another idol in its place as the solution? To rely on the individual and communal cultivation of the virtues and acceptance of responsibility requires a huge leap of faith. Relying on government to provide the solutions can be a form of idolatry, relying on the market itself is another form of idolatry, as is shifting the blame to the straw men of either the “left” or the “right”.
Speaking of a left wing straw man (or, rather woman), I saw today a link to an article with the headline that Sarah Palin’s family has relied on the Canadian Health Care system. The link went to an article on the Huffington Post, and it turns out that Palin’s family did indeed slip across the border for health care – when she was six years old and her family (i.e. her parents and siblings) lived in a remote part of eastern Alaska, across from the Alberta border.
I believe in the “Father of all lies” (Satan). I just happen to think he doesn’t care much who serves as his puppet. He’s very utilitarian in that way.
Just trying to be “fair and balanced”.
March 9th, 2010 | 6:58 pm
I believe you have a brain; however, your response to my response is still a dismissal of Hanson rather than a refutation. My point above was, what specifically do you disagree with in Hanson’s essay and why? Regardless of Hanson’s alleged incongruities, he seems to me to be spot on about a flaw in the contemporary American character even assuming he shares that flaw.
PS: I apologize for accusing you of being a Kossack; that’s an insult that should be reserved for the truly reprehensible.
March 9th, 2010 | 7:19 pm
Fred,
We’re talking past each other. I agree with Hanson’s positions. I just think that he no longer deserves recognition for taking them. Let him write a blog, be ignored and fade into obscurity where he belongs.
Regarding production. Well that’s a classic NIMBY reaction that transcends political orientation. Most production of anything is unattractive. I.e., not only mining and manufacturing but surgery and the frenetic pace of a high volume kitchen in a chi chi restaurant. Are people hypocritical about ends and means of production? Absolutely. Is this hypocrisy something novel? Nope.
P.S. Waging wars but not wanting to pay for them is hypocritical too. That was my other point about Hanson.
P.P.S. NRO or Daily Kos? I can’t decide which electron rag is the bigger insult to my meager intelligence.
March 10th, 2010 | 9:27 am
I grow “hothouse orchids” as a hobby, and I haven’t the faintest clue what that metaphor is supposed to mean. Help me out someone?
Peter S:
That’s a much wiser essay than the Hanson piece that inspired it.
March 10th, 2010 | 10:29 am
Hmmm, you agree with Hanson’s positions, Steve, you just don’t think he should get any credit for them, even though you, apparently, think he’s right?
That makes no sense, whatsoever.
March 10th, 2010 | 10:50 am
Re: Rhinestone
I agree with Hanson’s notes about people wanting to have their technology cake and eating it too. But like I stated about, that’s a trivial observation. So credit? Credit for what? I mean even a broken watch is right twice a day.
Hanson’s broad mindset is incongruous. It’s those other 23 hours 58 minutes of his musings that rob him of any legitimacy.
March 10th, 2010 | 11:01 am
What, exactly, is incongruous about having a “broad mindset”, or anything else Hanson says in this article? (And what the heck is a “neo-con”.)
Sometimes an insult can be “Calling a spade a spade,” and sometimes it’s just, well—an ad hominem attack. You’re not really clear on what, exactly, it is you don’t like about Hanson, except throwing out the “neo-con” jab. Your big beef seems to be that, since you don’t agree with him on everything, you can’t even support him on the things you DO agree with him about. That’s an emotional reaction, which you’re certainly entitled to, but it’s not really a refutation of what Hanson says here.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact