Let’s start off soberly, even on a note of august regret. One of the things Thomas Jefferson and John Adams agreed upon was that the primary point of republican popular suffrage was to elect a natural aristocracy. The same hope and intention gets expressed, albeit in a more guardedly specified manner, in a number of Federalist Papers. Fine men, those founders, as was Alexis de Tocqueville, who unfortunately could not but reveal that by the 1830s, the American hope of natural aristocracy emerging out of democratic suffrage had been utterly dashed. Most democratically-elected representatives and office-holders were mediocre men at best, downright scoundrels at worst. Nor was the latter type rare. The only apparent exception to this rule, the U.S. Senate, actually proved it, as its members were elected indirectly, by the state legislatures.
Yes, the silver lining was that democratic suffrage also encouraged the scoundrel-types to check one another’s penchants for outright villainy, but still, one would have wanted to hope, with Jefferson, Adams, Publius, and maybe Aristotle also, for better than this.
And Tocqueville may have actually been too pessimistic. In our day, we have some pretty solid political science, found especially in a Joseph Bessette essay ( here and here),that indicates that while “serious legislators” might at times be outnumbered by those who largely pander, posture, and pork-barrel, they are the ones who more often than not wind up in the leading roles in framing and passing legislation. A serious legislator does not exactly a natural aristocrat make, but it’s a relief to know that Tocqueville’s report doesn’t entirely apply.
Bessette’s argument, of course, is that this outcome is due to the founders intentionally mixing the democratic aspect of our system with features that drive it in a more deliberative direction. That means that in terms of what raw democratic suffrage gives you, Tocqueville’s report remains correct. And the actual operation of competing for this suffrage, i.e., the modern campaign, has very little about it that is august, naturally aristocratic, or even deliberative. Democracy in the raw is often ugly, low-down. You know this. I don’t have to pull out the Robert Penn Warren or Shakespeare’s Coriolanus to convince you.
********************************************
But I must say, this season I am loving one of the lowest-down aspects of democratic elections, let us call it the Pillory Possibility, wherein campaign dynamics sometimes uncover the dishonest means whereby a person has, for her whole life, obtained their success and respectability.
You know those moments that occur in many of Plato’s dialogues, where Socrates has already bested his opponent with respect to the main argument, but proceeds to take us through five more pages of “cross-examination,” bringing out each and every preposterous implication and contradiction that was present in his interlocutor’s position, dialectically dragging him back and forth over the coals until completely made a fool of?
Something like that is now happening to Elizabeth Warren, not at the hands of any Socrates, but by a pack of bloggers and journalists. The subject is not a philosophical one, but the fraudulent character of her life. Having stumbled upon her gaming of academia’s diversity incentives in hiring by claiming to be a (er…1/32nd part) Native American, the democratic pack is now uncovering one fraud after another: a) the genealogical claim cannot be squared with the legally-binding Cherokee definition of what constitutes Cherokee background, b) that claim is itself false, causing ripples of concern in genealogical circles about the New England Historic Genealogical Society’s integrity, c) her scholarship is sub-standard, as it received scathing peer-reviews and often crudely served partisan talking points (although it has emerged that her teaching was probably pretty good, and appreciated by both liberal and conservative students), d) her various university employers did use her box-check as evidence of diversity, and e) Harvard’s decision to hire her appears, all denials aside, quite likely related her box-check (Harvard should be ashamed of itself, and should apply some institutional discipline to those who made that hiring decision, but of course it won’t).
And whether or not Harvard takes any action against her, she was done the very moment her box-check became public. Anyone, whether for or against affirmative action in academia, knows that it is an abuse of it to claim Indian status the way she did, an abuse even if she really had been 1/32nd-part Native American. It would be one thing if such a 1/32nd-part Indian had regularly been involved in tribal matters, or Indian scholarship—that would present a kind of moral quandary case. But to check the box when you had no daily-life connection to the Cherokees? Everyone knows that’s wrong. Universities get to claim they’re hiring Native Americans when they’re basically not. But Warren wasn’t about to pass by any remotely claim-able advantage.
And then to learn she did this without even adequately checking her ancestry? That she was responsible for presenting false information to our ongoing effort to at least accurately enumerate diversity or the lack thereof in our institutions? In my book, this is the lesser and more forgivable sin, assuming it wasn’t an outright effort of deception—it’s plausible that she was misled by “family lore.” Of course, her present efforts to defend her claim may involve outright deception, especially if it emerges that her camp put pressure upon the genealogist Chris Child to stonewall questions about the 1/32nd claim. But in any case, given the oiliness of her making the claim even if true, the additional revelation that it wasn’t dooms her election chances.
But the glorious thing has been, Elizabeth Warren doesn’t know she’s done! She keeps at it. And so yesterday, we learned that she very likely plagiarized several recipes for one Pow Wow Chow Cookbook!
[hilarious laughter ensues, several minutes worth]
Oh, YES! More, Elizabeth, MORE! Enough of reading our Tocquevile and being sadly sobered up.
If anyone remembers this sorry woman’s name fifty years from now, it will be as a trivia answer: name the politician who lost a Senate race due to plagiarizing a recipe. She’s lived a life of cutting ethical corners, risen to success after success, but with a comedy-gold contemptibility that just cried out to the heavens for exposure. It was just too damn funny for the rest of us not to know! Whether we owe such priceless entertainment more to the Good Lord’s sense of humor, or to the false god Democracy, we must be grateful.
For we don’t get aristocrats, and we are forced to put up with plenty of scoundrels, but we at least get this from time to time.
May 19th, 2012 | 11:46 am
Worthy of ridicule to be sure. Given much of the outrage that we have to put up with in our political process, it’s good when something this funny comes along to provide a bit of comic relief.
May 19th, 2012 | 7:36 pm
What you don’t understand Carl, is that Ms. Warren is a Democrat and it’s different for Democrats.
May 19th, 2012 | 7:49 pm
I think this Elizabeth Warren story might actually help prove Bessette’s point. The non-deliberative democracy rational choice approach of political scientists like Mayhew is that real work and experience doesn’t matter to politicians because all they’re interested in is getting reelected, and will instead focus on credit claiming, position taking, and advertising.
But like any utility maximization function, the desire for reelection doesn’t fully capture the humanity experience of being a politician.
This story goes to show that sometimes, a loser who fakes his or her work experience literally can’t make up for it with any amount of political spin.
May 20th, 2012 | 1:06 am
This case has been of some interest to me. I have nothing in common with her politics and morals, but I do share a similar amount of Native American heritage.
I have no paper documentation stating I am a Native American although I know my grandmother was and my last name is Nez Perz. But, that was the only tick mark that has the potential to get me into the McNair program, so that is the box I checked. It is a hard life for a student who can’t get funding for his fields of interest.
May 20th, 2012 | 7:27 am
I just want to know one thing. Would this author be so giddy,so overflowing with triumphant glee, about this sad story of a rather pathetic and seriously flawed woman, if she were a conservative Republican?
May 20th, 2012 | 8:56 am
Jane, this seriously flawed woman is running for the Senate. What seriously flawed or even semi-flawed woman of the Right has not been publicly flayed? OK, not literally, but these choices Elizabeth Warren made are active ones, not passive. She made these things public by becoming a public figure and they are the petard she built and in a sense has hoisted herself upon. None of these things would be of national interest if she were not running for public office.
Yes, it is hard to see a woman embarassed like this, but we are hoping that the kind of person she is will not have an effect on our national politics through losing this election and not being in our national politics. The people of Massachusetts may yet elect her, God help us all.
May 20th, 2012 | 9:35 am
It is no big deal, and it is part of american exceptionalism. All it actually does is sell more of the cookbook on Amazon, and the omlette itself is probably tasty.
True claims of racial identity are obviously French, as this is the people most concerned with source origin and sponsorship. There may also be some Cherokee Nationalists who call for her immediate scalping…albeit more likely they are vulgar conservative hotheads.
Potentially Obama or Mitt Romney might have standing to ask that she be burned at the stake as a witch working magic to cast a dark pall foging the legitimacy of the Harvard brand. Except that such a view of Harvard Exceptionalism is contrary to itself as an eternal repudiation of colonial Mass.
“campaign dynamics sometimes uncover the dishonest means whereby a person has, for her whole life, obtained their success and respectability.” To my anglo american ears you sound like Uther Pendragon telling Lancelot he cannot be a knight because he is not of noble birth, yet an aspect of our american exceptionalism lies in fudging titles of nobility, and providing colorable documents. It is even said that possession is 9/10th of the law. If Elizabeth Warren could build a paper trail to fool Harvard, and get 9/10′s possession of 1/32nd Cherokee, then all the better.
If you oppose affirmative action, then you can’t oppose Elizabeth Warren for undermining its Integrity. She is a democratic paragon for tarnishing Harvard’s aristocratic right to rule.
Also as a component of american exceptionalism it seems that the academic lobby is deficient, there is no cause of action for plagiarism, she could perhaps be sued for copyright infringement.
“name the politician who lost a Senate race due to plagiarizing a recipe.”
My Lord, only in France is such a thing possible, there it is said the pillars of creation are upheld by fine food and moral outrage concerning plagiarism, to combine the two sins would be unthinkable, it would make a frenchman american, and he would be forced to drink sparkling wine from a box, while calling it Cherokee Casino Champagne. Americans are heavens who make Virginia Brand Ham in Ohio, they steal all recipes and cook as they please, in America it is said that Taco Bell exists and no one cares that it is not mexican.
May 20th, 2012 | 9:47 am
The Warren example raises real questions about what Affirmative Action is supposed to accomplish, that has been judged by the US Supreme Court to be SO important that it outweighs the simple and easily applied principle stated in the Constitution of equality under the law. The rationale adopted was that the larger body of students would benefit from undergoing the academic experience with people of materially different life experiences and therefore insights into the innumerable topics which the students would be learning about.
Yet there is no evidence that Professor Warren contributed any of that value-added ethnic experience to the intellectual process at Harvard. She had no detailed knowledge of the experiences of American Indians in general or of her own alleged ancestors in particular, or of their religious beliefs or culture or traditional viewpoints on any of the topics which are addressed at a modern university. She knows no Indian language or concepts or skills. Even if the claim had been true, the best she could claim would be a mere genetic contribution, not manifesting in any discernible way.
Let me note that Warren’s claim irritates me personally a bit more because I am a “real minority” person. I was born in Japan of a Japanese mother and American father, and at the time, American immigration law considered me to be fully Japanese, not American. The law was changed and our family was allowed to come to the US, where I grew up with my parents attending a church congregation with other Japanese families. I worked in Japan for five years, learning to speak and read the language, for which I earned college credit by examination and later interpreter pay from the Air Force. I have lived in the cities of Tokyo, Nagano, Kofu, Otaru, Sapporo, and Koriyama, the last just outside the evacuation zone for the Fukushima nuclear plants disaster. My mother gave each of her children a Japanese middle name, continuing a family tradition that her own Russian Orthodox family followed of having both Japanese and Christian given names. Today my 13 grandchildren continue that tradition. I have belonged to various professional organizations where I could help mentor minority students preparing to enter my field.
Yet my ability to teach my students, at the various universities where I have been an adjunct instructor, anything about Japan and its culture is largely irrelevent to the particular topics where I am qualified to teach. In contrast, I had a coworker in Japan who went on to develop an academic specialty in Japan, had fellowships at University of Tokyo (the most prestigious school in the nation), established a program in that field at one university, worked in the State Department, and was such an outstanding scholar that he went on to become a grad school dean and then president of two major universities. Yet he has absolutely no genetic heritage from Japan.
Affirmative action says that I should be preferred over my friend in an academic hiring decision, yet he is eminently more qualified to enrich the intellectual atmosphere of a university with his knowledge of Japan. He is also a model of what Affirmative Action claims is its legitimizing goal: to have students appreciate in significant ways the lifeways and viewpoints of foreign cultures. His example shows a path to cross cultural enlightenment for those who do not come by their cultural understanding with their mother’s yakisoba and sukiyaki.
The entire premise of Affirmative Action in the academic environment is an unproven hypothesis, never established through any valid objective scientific study, and actually contrary to common sense and direct experience.
May 20th, 2012 | 12:23 pm
Admittedly, Jane, my glee is a bit unseemly. I did say it was a low-down thing.
But you gotta admit, the cookbook thing is blissfully hilarious. Liberals and conservatives can at least unite on that.
Because assuming the story holds up, then it looks like the Elizabeth Warren of 1984 was calculating as follows:
Hmm… My box-check aide to moving up in academia has a weakness, because at some point, some might say I’m benefiting far too much by being a 1/32d part of a background I have no day-to-day relation to. But I DO care about my part-Cherokee heritage, gosh darn-it, and I’m CONNECTED enough to connected Cherokees to have the opportunity to get recipes into this book. So here’s a chance to beef up my Cherokee creds! And I won’t let the fact that I don’t know any Cherokee recipes stop me.
I mean, Machiavellian moves for the sake of getting into the Pow Wow Chow cookbook? Really???
Just think, Jane, whenever we learn that a young one is troubled by the idea that it’s mainly the deceivers who are able to get ahead, we’ll now be able to set ‘em down and say, “It’s true that sometimes the wicked seem to prosper, but let me tell you the story of Elizabeth Warren and the Pow Wow Chow Cookbook.”
May 20th, 2012 | 2:39 pm
Actually Jane, I think Carl would call out a Republican too. Just for fun, I searched the name “Christine O’Donnell” on this blog, and and found a post where Carl made the following comment (mind you, O’Donnell billed herself as a very conservative Republican):
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2010/09/30/tea-party-people-and-stuff/
“… this O’Donnell has simply been lying about her CV, which is way more creepier in its implications for her being Senator than dating a nut or saying unintelligent things back in the day. Is her vote for 6 years really worth tolerating her dishonesty? Will conservatives even have that vote, given her character? Glad I’m not a DE Republican.”
May 21st, 2012 | 9:15 pm
This post links to an article on Investor.com which grossly distorts Warren’s CV. The Investor.com article says she “bounced around” from academic place to place for a decade after graduating from Rutgers Law. I then looked at Warren’s CV and it shows something quite different: her career in the legal academy shows a steady upward trajectory, from Univ. of Houston Law School to a research post and then a professorship at Univ. of Texas, than a chair at Univ. of Penn. Law School, then Harvard. Difficult to reconcile this career with all the negative things being said about her here and elsewhere. You don’t get these kinds of jobs simply by claiming to have Native American ancestry.
May 21st, 2012 | 11:19 pm
LFC, good call. I did think that was a funny phrase to use. I have not waded into the “quality of scholarship” issue myself, but I do note that the concerns about it come from multiple sources, including an article in the Atlantic.
You get those jobs by being a clever and connected organization person…with a little help from a few strategic lies along the way.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact