Most of Obama's words thus far suggest that he is staking a claim for the Moral High Ground. He has released the torture memos because he believes he is better than the Bush administration in this regard. He is releasing the pictures of "torture" prisoners for the very same reasons. When he was oversea he apologized for past US actions, because he nominally believe the US could have done better, and that under him we will. There are two things to consider here.
First is that if he thinks this will make the US safer or better he is wrong. Those who work toward our destruction do so not because of some reasoning, but some hatred. That we could have been better angers them. That we believe we could be better also angers them. There mere fact that we are different from what they want to be angers them, regardless of how good we are. Staking claim to the Moral High Ground may make things worse for us. It certainly not keeps us safer. Those that seek to compete against us will not treat us better, or help us further our goals. They compete against us because they think they can beat us. Given any opportunity to do so they will certainly try regardless of who has the Moral High Ground.
Second is that if he thinks he can claim the Moral High Ground he is also wrong. This sort of thinking seems rampant to those without practical experience in life, living by concepts they believe the world should operate by rather than the principles the world lives by. This is akin to a rich couple believing their wealth keeps their estate well maintained, rather than understanding that it is still the housekeepers and gardeners' labors over dirt. Or a hospital CEO proclaiming how many lives his hospital saves, without acknowledging it is the doctors and nurses work in soilage and pus. Or a general believing he won the battle rather than the soldiers killing and maiming. The difference between Obama's Moral High Ground and reality is the difference between Ideals and Practice.
At best, his stake for the Moral High Ground only shows his naïveté. What it clearly reveals is his hubris, not his humanity. And through it all, he has also demonstrated willingness to use politics to further himself.
Showing posts with label Elitism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elitism. Show all posts
20081110
Intellectualism: thinkers vs. doers
The problem with some intellectuals, usually professors and pundits, is that they think being smart and showing how smart they are is enough to change the world. It isn't. To change the world and make life better for your fellow men and women requires a good idea that is actionable, followed by the hard work necessary to act, and the resolve to endure adversities and resistance to the goal. Most elitists do not understand this and thus tend to look down on the doers as being inferior intellectually.
I am reminded of this in medicine. In the field of medicine there are two kinds of doctors, proceduralists (like surgeons) and non-proceduralists (like internists). Internists tend to think they are smarter than surgeons and tend to look down on surgeons as mere technicians. But it is actually harder to become a surgeon (grades and skills) than to become an internist. I am not saying internists aren't smart, just that the impression they hold of their own intellectual superiority is incorrect.
Related post: Political Elitism
I am reminded of this in medicine. In the field of medicine there are two kinds of doctors, proceduralists (like surgeons) and non-proceduralists (like internists). Internists tend to think they are smarter than surgeons and tend to look down on surgeons as mere technicians. But it is actually harder to become a surgeon (grades and skills) than to become an internist. I am not saying internists aren't smart, just that the impression they hold of their own intellectual superiority is incorrect.
Related post: Political Elitism
20081018
Political Elitism
Wikipedia describe Elitism as
When applied to the political arena, it suggests that the elites are best able to comments on or lead politically. I find this particularly amusing because most elites are either degreed intellectuals or the trust-fund rich. The problem with these people being in charge of politics is that they are usually out of touch with the goals of politics. Too often these elites are in it because they think they know better, or because of some misconception of Noblesse Oblige. In other words, they enter politics (either as a politician or as an expert on politics. This is not the goal of politics in a democracy such as the US.
The goal of politics in the US is to serve the average citizens. It is the average citizens that make this country great. They do so by working and toiling to provide for their family. The product of their toils is the productivity of the engines of our economy and national wealth. The even more precious product of their toils are young men and women willing to fight and die to protect this country, willing to continue their parents productivity to maintain this country, and generate entrepreneurship and innovation to advance this country. Thus it is the average citizens who makes up and continue the weave that make this country great.
Being richer than the average citizen does not give the elites a mandate for leadership in politics. Being smarter than the average citizen does not give the elites a mantle of leadership in politics. I am in no way suggesting that being rich or being smart disqualify a person for political leadership. Certainly being smart is of great value for any political leaders but it is even more important to know whether that intelligence has been employed to the benefit of the average citizen directly. "What have you done to improve the lives of those around you?"
I believe in political merits, that service has been rendered to help others should be the requisite for political leadership or positions. I want political leaders to be judged based not on what they want to do along. Anyone can promise the moon. I want political to know how the average citizens have benefited from what actions of the politicians. I am particularly tired of politicians and pundits who feel their intelligence and wit allow them to judge others based on elitist concepts without significance for the average citizen, even worse when they belittle and insult the average voters.
the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite — a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern
When applied to the political arena, it suggests that the elites are best able to comments on or lead politically. I find this particularly amusing because most elites are either degreed intellectuals or the trust-fund rich. The problem with these people being in charge of politics is that they are usually out of touch with the goals of politics. Too often these elites are in it because they think they know better, or because of some misconception of Noblesse Oblige. In other words, they enter politics (either as a politician or as an expert on politics. This is not the goal of politics in a democracy such as the US.
The goal of politics in the US is to serve the average citizens. It is the average citizens that make this country great. They do so by working and toiling to provide for their family. The product of their toils is the productivity of the engines of our economy and national wealth. The even more precious product of their toils are young men and women willing to fight and die to protect this country, willing to continue their parents productivity to maintain this country, and generate entrepreneurship and innovation to advance this country. Thus it is the average citizens who makes up and continue the weave that make this country great.
Being richer than the average citizen does not give the elites a mandate for leadership in politics. Being smarter than the average citizen does not give the elites a mantle of leadership in politics. I am in no way suggesting that being rich or being smart disqualify a person for political leadership. Certainly being smart is of great value for any political leaders but it is even more important to know whether that intelligence has been employed to the benefit of the average citizen directly. "What have you done to improve the lives of those around you?"
I believe in political merits, that service has been rendered to help others should be the requisite for political leadership or positions. I want political leaders to be judged based not on what they want to do along. Anyone can promise the moon. I want political to know how the average citizens have benefited from what actions of the politicians. I am particularly tired of politicians and pundits who feel their intelligence and wit allow them to judge others based on elitist concepts without significance for the average citizen, even worse when they belittle and insult the average voters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)