American Cant
Such is the Wickedness of some men, and the stupid Servility of others, that one would almost be inclined to conclude that Communities cannot be free. —Sam Adams
Much American public discourse—the larger part—is made up of false impressions and invalid assumptions, what sensible people used to call cant, that are designed to disguise and support the wickedness of power seekers. For instance:
Spending more money leads to better education.
More and better buildings and equipment lead to better education.
More well-paid administrators lead to better education.
The purpose of education is to get a good job.
Education guarantees getting a good job. (Ceased to be true some time ago.)
Spectator sports are an essential part of education.
Spending more money leads to a better national defense.
Occupying foreign countries is national defense.
Occupying foreign countries helps them to achieve democracy.
Affirmative action leads to equal opportunity for all.
Abraham Lincoln was a saintly man.
School integration has been a world-class success.
Disarming law-abiding citizens will increase public safety.
Television newspersons are well-informed and fair.
Israel is an indispensable ally.
The Bill of Rights was given us by the Founding Fathers so the government could guarantee us our rights.
The Constitution requires “a wall of separation” between government and religion, especially Christianity.
The Constitution proclaims democracy and that “all men are created equal.”
All Presidents are basically decent and well-meaning (except possibly Nixon).
America's primary task today is to "defeat terrorism."
The Federal Reserve Chairman is a very wise man who knows how to "manage" the economy.
The Constitution establishes the Democratic and Republican parties.
John F. Kennedy, for his charm and intelligence, was a universally admired President.
The best way to stop the incredibly lucrative illegal drug trade is to put drug users in jail.
Americans cruelly stole land from Mexico.
American settlers (from whom a majority of "Americans" are no longer descended) stole land from the Indians.
The United States is a democracy where the people rule. (You have to be really dumb after the last few weeks not to figure out that the United States is a plutocracy.)
Entries(RSS)
Well put, Dr. Wilson. I believe these examples are used to dumb-down Americans, especially, in our educational system.
Indeed, government "education" is at the heart of just about every one of Dr. Wilson's line items. In the spirit of the late, great Marshall Fritz, we need to separate school and state (as they once were).
Nicely done, Dr. Wilson. I would disagree with you about one thing, though. What people have traditionally called "the education system"---the FORMAL education system---really isn't the important one.
I would submit, for general consideration, the proposition that the mass media/entertainment complex (television, radio, movies, etc.) is the true one. The formal-schooling systems and colleges are designed to have a secondary purpose of imparting some small fragments of knowledge, with their primary purpose being holding pens/daycare centers for the immature. The parents get to have someone else watch their children while they work, while the employer class (and political-class allies) gets a more docilized workforce.
The real education, the instruction as to what "correct" sentiments and mentation (I refuse to call it "thinking") the good subject is supposed to have, is conducted by the communications media. So-called "popular culture" is set up to tell impressionable youth and adolescents how to feel about this topic or that. They are attempting with some success to supplant the churches as the dominant institutions of moral instruction; the most important kind.
While the schools and colleges are certainly cesspools, they may not be the greater menace to the survival of our society and people.
I second Mr Higdon's remark.
"While the schools and colleges are certainly cesspools, they may not be the greater menace to the survival of our society and people."
People have always been stupid. Some people do in fact get something out of their university education: these are the people you see in power right now. A kind lady once tried to reassure me, when I was frustrated with the bizarre antics of one particular student I had to deal with, that students just "often adopt weird ideas," as though he would reject it later in life. I beg to differ. They come out of those places ten times more dangerous.
"Americans cruelly stole land from Mexico."
If you do not mind me asking, Dr. Wilson, would you mind expanding on this point? I am an opponent of empire and I can not say I am much of a fan of the Polk administration's handling of the War with Mexico-much as say a number of good men ranging from, as you know better than anyone else, Sen. Calhoun to Robert Rhett to Alex Stephens. Do you believe the war with Mexico was justified?
Dr. Wilson managed to sum very nicely what ails (or caused ailment of) the USA and other countries (premises adapted appropriately).
My personal bugaboo is television.
It is a huge and effective educational tool wasted. Here in Canada we have English programs, French programs, Chinese programs, rare German travelogues, etc. etc.
And what do we get offered? Great movies in French, informative scientific and technological programs in Chinese, outstanding photography and scenery in German, contrasted with mind-numbing banality in English, with apologies to the rare exception.
WHY?
Because the anglophones are not DISCRIMINATING enough and swallow any and all rubbish offered?
How about contacting the advertisers and telling them that you will no longer buy their products if they continue their association and support of such mediocre programming. I suspect that the decision-makers in these corporations are highly susceptible to such "encouragement" from the public in these economically interesting times.
H.F. Wolff
@ 2 "Indeed, government “education” is at the heart of just about every one of Dr. Wilson’s line items. In the spirit of the late, great Marshall Fritz, we need to separate school and state (as they once were)."
Yes, the University should maintain a certain sanctity that is not voilated by the corrupt politics of the day--. One should be able to speak the truth as an academic.
For beginners....home-school your children, throw out the television, and have as many children as God chooses to give you...."Blessed is the man that hath his quiver full of them."
They used to say "cant."
In the '50s, they said "point of order."
I think the word of the decade is "bulls***."
Same stuff, different decade.
Chronicles is unique in its awareness of how awful the modern education system is. The older generation generally doesn't know how quickly things have degenerated, and my generation takes the current system for granted. It would be very worthwhile if someone at Chronicles made some practical suggestions on how to get a good education today. Obviously the first step is to send children to a private/parochial school rather than a "good" public school. I'd stop paying the electric bill before I did that. Then I suppose the choice is to either learn a trade or go to graduate school.
Alas, what evil customs reign in Greece!
Forget Mexican land, our problems started when Jefferson wasn't impeached for the Louisiana purchase!
Concerning the notion that America is a democracy: Some years ago an English friend wrote to me and mentioned this notion in his letter. I wrote back and said: "We are not a democracy. We are a plutocratic republic with sporadic populist input."
I've been a teacher since 1968. I've taught in colleges, universities, high schools, and junior highs schools. Most of my closest friends are teachers too, in many different schools.
I can say this with authority: Almost all education in America is a swiving joke. If a student happens to get educated, it is by the purest chance.
As a college student in New York I can see firsthand some of the evils perpetuated by our current education system. One of its worst fruits is, at least in this city, the idea that education is a natural preparation for activism. Young men and women are taught that their education is a weapon with which they can tear down the world and rebuild it within the idealistic rubrics that are taught to them in the classroom. It is more like boot camp for revolutionaries. The philosophy behind it is characteristically modern, the idea being that education has only a practical end or function. Education will only change when this idea is defeated. Students must be taught to be passive instead of active. They must be taught that something can be valuable even if it does not have practical use.
"One of its worst fruits is, at least in this city, the idea that education is a natural preparation for activism. Young men and women are taught that their education is a weapon with which they can tear down the world and rebuild it within the idealistic rubrics that are taught to them in the classroom."
Well said, Edward. As nutty as teachers and professors are these days, I think this pragmatism (or perhaps utilitarianism is a better word) is imbibed from parents as well. We aren't going to salvage the whole education system, but if we could convince enough intelligent folks that education has intellectual and spiritual purposes, then we might have a fighting chance at forming a solid and significant intellectual base in this country.
"The purpose of education is to get a good job." Of course, the purpose of education is moral formation and the development of certain mental faculties (critical reading, writing, speaking, music, etc.). The purpose of vocational training is to get and hold a (good) job. The purpose of American schooling is the inculcation of working and consuming. The vocational training is being held hostage to monist, socialist programming; worse than statism it only propagates putrefaction.
After Dewey finally reset the paradigm for American education, nothing other than pragmatism and experiential pedagogy could ultimately follow. This is one reason why the ultimate end of "education" today is either to make lots of money or to become a widely recognized activist (in other words, famous). This is also one reason why the media are so successful at "teaching" the general population. The main paradigm for learning is experience, and we have come to believe that if we sit and watch something we have experienced it. That is learning. I'm smart, so I watch the History Channel. Now I know how evil Christianity really is, how wonderful Kennedy was, etc.
Millions of us were / are taught this way and pat ourselves on the back when we give our kids digital TV's instead of reel to reel on which to observe our descent into absurdity.
"The vocational training is being held hostage to monist, socialist programming; worse than statism it only propagates putrefaction."
It's a shame if vocational schools are that bad in the U.S. I've heard some European countries (especially Germany) do a much better job. So many people here pile up huge debt to earn a B.A. and then can't find a real job.
"Occupying foreign countries is national defense."
“There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. If victory is long in coming, then men’s weapons will grow dull and ardor will be dampened.” - Sun Tzu, Art of War
Abraham Lincoln was a saintly man, and so was Michael (martin luther) King despite the facts that he was a womanizer, plagiarist, cheat, and communist.
My son refused to go to college because an education is not necessary to earn money. The crab-fishing crewmen on Dangerous Catch can earn $70,000 each in a good 3 week run. He joined the army for 2 reasons, 1. to learn about helicopters repair first and fly next. And 2. to grow up
Occupying foreign countries helps them to achieve democracy.
Florence King once described democracy as the crude leading the crud.
Saddam Hussein was democratically elected, so were the soviets in Russia, so was Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, Gandhi, Bhutto, Hamas etc. It's high time democracy was knocked off its high horse.
Etienne Gervaise, @22, I'm under the impression that pure democracy only works in a very small community, like a village or a monastery where everyone knows everyone and thus who may really be qualified to occupy a position of leadership for its own benefit. I think that is how it worked historically in the ancient Greek states. Not that it was perfect, because we humans are not perfect. However, I agree, that democracy is an absolute farce in anything larger, because it allows for powerful interests to exploit it through emotionalism, graft or coercion. These powerful interests have no concern for the interests of the larger entity other than it provides the power group the resources to increase in ever greater power to accomplish its own ends.
I would suggest that if government could be removed from education, it should then be left up to the churches, especially primary education. However, considering how degenerate or even depraved many churches are today, and how plain nutty the apostate groups have always been, somehow it doesn't seem like such a good idea after all (with the exception of traditional parochial schools, of course).
Mr Anderson @18: It would be a big eye opener if one were to go through old film, starting with the silent days and continuing up to now, and observe the changes in behaviour, manners, culture, and social patterns which would be apparent, as well as changes in body language, speech, etc. It would be an insightful commentary on the decline of civilisation over time.
Chesterbelloc @11: Believe it or not, even though many podcasts are ridiculous or shallow, there are some serious ones that could be used for self-education. Of course that's not much, but it's better than nothing.
@23 J Meng
We were given fair warning at the outset of the American political experiment by Benjamin Franklin. He told a questioner we have a republic, if we can keep it. He also said that it would last until people found ouit they could vote themselves money.
A fellow calling Ron Smith on WBAL said he had kept a longtime employee working even though there was not much to do at the moment. That employee quit a week before inauguration because when Obama became president he would get "free money."
So, in a nutshell, we have gone from colonists, to republicans, to socialists to imperialists who shove a democracy we can't get right ourselves down other peoples' throats. It's time to declare victory and retreat.
@18 Jeff
Well said! You must have read The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie by Muriel Spark. For those who have not done so, I highly recommend this thin tome as a guide to the twisted psychology behind the current "education" movement that really got moving after WWI.
Allen Wilson @ 24
ISI has some excellent lectures to download to iPod, if you didn't already know.
"The Bill of Rights was given us by the Founding Fathers so the government could guarantee us our rights."
This is an interesting point. As many Chronicles readers know, there were Federalists like James Wilson and Noah Webster (a/k/a "Old Hickory") who made this very point about adopting a Bill of Rights. They pointed out that such a bill was an advent of monarchic government and unworthy of a free people. Webster argued that a bill would actually diminish the people's freedom because such rights would then be understood as derogations of power by the central government instead of fundamental rights. Any government that could delineate and guarantee a right could also abolish it. Whatever the merits of this (albeit incomplete) argument given the monarchic structure of the executive that developed, it is worth revisiting when studying the founding period, for it reminds us that good, intelligent men made plausible arguments against a Bill of Rights in the interest of liberty.
@ 26
I have not read the book, but I certainly will now. Thanks for the information.
Sebastian @ 28
Herewith do I share some thoughts which have passed through my mind in the last few days as I have contemplated culture which I have come to understand to be the symbols, institutions and procedures which RESTRAIN the compulsions, impulses, whims, desires and lusts of the individual so that the individual, having been emancipated from such, can perform his duties (be free) and obligations to the relationships found in a cosmic order: the deity or deities, the family, the religious institutions, and other intimate commonwealths. One acquires through training in the family, the religious institutions and other intimate commonwealths the capital virtues, which gain dominance in one's life over the capital vices, the cardinal virtues, which ultimately give one the capacity for justice, and, in the Christian context, the theological virtues. A culture extols character and not personality; it places a premium on virtue and not values, i.e. personal opinions.
The anti-culture unleashes and looses on the world the compulsions, whims, desires and lusts of the individual. It is constantly in pursuit of the illusive "autonomous individual" or "Promethean self" which is never found; however, in the pursuit thereof is created the estranged and alienated individual or shriveled self. The ally of these would-be autonomous individuals is the Hobbesian state. It is the agent which, embodied itself in estranged individuals in factions and bureaus, does the heavy work in deconstructing and undermining the symbols, institutions and processes of culture, banishing God, the Church and ultimately the family.
Thus, in a culture, restrain is built in. The "superior" restrains the "inferior," and the "inferior" restrains the "superior."
The Father's wrath is restrained by the Church, the Body and the Bride of Christ, in that as long as the Church is in the world, living the Gospel of the Living Christ and being the light and salt, the Father holds back His wrath, extending mercy and grace because of the work of Christ and His Church. (Subsidiarity?)
I would therefore submit for discussion - to be corrected, amended or refuted - that the "rights" reflected in the first ten amendments are "rights" in the oldest sense of that word: actually a requesit virtue, yea, the duty and obligation of a man to restrain the superior authority. (reht = straight; †upright, righteous; just, correct, proper; real, true, which is not far from the Latin "rectus.") They are not "rights as liberties" but "rights as duties and obligations to restrain the superior."
Beginning with the 13th amendment, and in particular with the 14th amendment, the Constitution as a document in which the general government is restrained through rights, i.e. duties and obligations which come out of the cosmic order, is turned on its head, and becomes a document of anti-culture: the Hobbesian state in the form of Lincoln's consolidated prepositional nation begins to inexorably destroy and deconstruct the symbols, institutions and processes of culture and replaces rights as duties with rights as liberties in the Jacobin sense, appealing to the compulsions, whims, and lusts of the ever-quested-for "autonomous individual," seeking to divest himself of all duties and obligations associated with a creature in a cosmic order.
As to whether these rights should have been in the Constitution or added as they were as amendments, I must say that two spirits strive in my soul. From time to time, such rights must be articulated. Placing such restraints, if my understand is correct, in a document such as the Constitution makes perfect sense as long as there is divided sovereignty - the general government and the states - or unless there is a higher authority to which each might appeal. There was no higher authority; so we were stuck with divided sovereignty, which was quickly undermined and which disappeared by 1865. Where there is not means and no will to restrain, whether the rights were written into the Constitution or not makes little difference.
#28 Sebastian. I believe you have missed my point. The cant in the statement is the claim that the Bill of Rights gave power to the government to defend our rights. The the Bill of Rights was demanded by the people to protect their rights from the government, as a restraint on government. I did not give any power to the federal government. I also don't agree with the Federalist argument that the Bill of Rights dangerously empowered the government. It did so only after it was turned on its head by Lincoln's revolution and the 14th amendment. The Federalist argument against the Bill of Rights was dishonest, because the very same people did all they could to expand federal power to restrict liberty, as in the illegal and unconstitutional Sedition Act that John Adams and his friends imposed. Theirs was merely an expedient, dishonest argument against the Bill of Rights because it did restrict federal power. James Wilson and (Noah?) Webster were among the strongest advocates of unlimited central power at the time--even worse than Hamilton. We have to free ourselves of centralist disinformation and get this early history right.
Form of government matters not. Democracy is simply the rule of 51%, nothing more. I don't care who rules, a monarch, 51% of the electorate, an aristocratic senate, a doge, a princeps, a theocrat; who rules does not matter. How the rule is exercised is everything. If there is freedom and liberty and scope to thrive, then who cares who or what reigns in the capital? I'd much prefer living under an enlightened despot than the under rule of our Gadarene swine that the demos regularly send to Washington.
#32. Yes, but an "enlightened despot" is as rare and as hard to find and keep as an enlightened demos.
"Man is insatiable for power; he is infantile in his desires and, always discontented with what he has, loves only what he has not. People complain of the despotism of princes; they ought to complain of the despotism of man."-Joseph de Maistre
There is an old saying; a prince is sometimes a Nero and sometimes a Marcus Aurelius,the people are sometimes a Nero but NEVER a Marcus Aurelius.
"The constitution is a living, breathing document."
I don't really care who first made that ridiculous statement, but for doing so, he ought to have been hog-tied and horse-whipped, then placed in the stocks and pelted with rotten fruit and dead cats.
@35
...along with any politician who runs as a "consensus-builder."
Many of the one-liners, Dr. Wilson used are a pure fallacy, distortion or some other form of euphemism which is patently untrue or unsustainable in some other form.
To get back to the proverbial American colloquial speech: "Two wrongs don't make a right"
How many time do we as a nation need to be fooled? Enough is enough, already.
@6: Regarding Mexico, one can admire or detest Polk, and one could argue that he would or would not have carried out the invasion, conquest and colonisation (my personal opinion is that it was a dispute between two rebellious breakaways of, respectively, England and Spain), but here are a couple of facts:
1. The land that was conquered was sparsely populated;
2. The conquest was a "clean" one along the principles of the Ancien Régime and not pure hegemony: until quite recently, it was normal to pay someone a sum of money for territory claimed by war, which the U.S. did.
3. As far as I know there were no expulsions as there had been when France gradually ceded Canada to Great Britain; none of the Mexicans living in Mexico today have any roots in the land north of the Rio Grande and no "ancestral-national" claim.
The U.S. has committed horrific crimes against many states and many peoples. However, I am not inclined to view any modern Mexican as a "victim" of my country.
Clyde Wilson @ 32 "even worse than Hamilton"...good grief,the martyred patriot would not recognize today's leviathan.It's over two centuries since he fell in gentlemanly dueling to the scoundrel Burr.If you don't like General Alexander Hamilton,you have to be intellectually consistent and say you don't like President George Washington either.Who wrote Washington's Farewell Address...that near sacred document of American neutrality and so often quoted by paleos?See Hamilton's letter of July 30,1796 to Washington for the answer.I admire all our Founding Fathers...even the bankrupt Jacobin and fop Jefferson whose substitution of "the pursuit of happiness" for "property" in the Declaration is an ongoing cultural problem.The Founders-all of them-gave us a damn good start.They didn't screw it up.
As for the taking of Mexican land, what power since the dawn of time has not done this? Every parched, miserable spit of land on earth was stolen from someone else; it's what history is made of. The American push West was less brutal than most other land grabs, though by no means does that absolve the manifest destiny crowd of breathtaking hypocrisy and lying through its teeth. But a whale is a whale and will at all times consume schools of tiny fish.
Well then, you would have to say that the Israelis were historically justified in their theft of land from the Palestinians. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
I am not arguing that a modern Mexican is a victim. I do think that the Polk administration made a naked power grab despite their best attempts to clothe it. I agree that the US is not alone in doing this despite the best efforts of the American exceptionalist city on the hill crowd.
@41: Some Israelis purchased land honestly; some didn't. But we're discussing the U.S. As Mr. Reb has made clear, the U.S. grab of 55 percent of Mexico plus Texas was far less brutal than most other such grabs, and less genocidal to boot.
American adventurism SINCE that time has, of course, been less palatable.
@42: I do think the "Mexico is a victim" crowd is precisely whom Dr. Wilson was addressing: those who cheer the ongoing Reconquista. Most Mexican-Americans have even less of a claim on the Southwest than I do (my father was from California; my mother and her siblings were born in Texas to North Dakota transplanted parents; I was born in Arizona and stayed for all of seven months before moving to the Rust Belt, and in fact I have as much family in the Upper Midwest as in Texas).
Of course, Dr. Wilson is correct. But what can you expect from a country that has made billionaires out of Oprah Winfrey, Martha Stewart and Vince McMahon.
Lord willing, I will write one of these days on the war with the Mexican dictator Santa Anna.
Messrs. Peters & Wilson:
Thank you for your replies. I believe you are both correct. I was not trying to make an argument against the Bill of Rights. It would have been a weak one at that! I'm very happy we have such a bill, and for the fist ten, as Mr. Peters points out, they have more to do with reciprocal obligations than just liberties.
Thanks again
@38 NGPM
Perhaps you don't understand Mexican envy. You see, we annexed the part that had the good roads. Their joke, not mine.
If i'm not mistaken, I believe we paid Mexico several millions of dollars for that land that we had already won in the war with them. So I don't believe we "stole" it from Mexico. As for Texas, we Texans fought a war of secession from dictatorial Mexico and won! Period. Texas was an independent Republic for 10 years! I can't stand Yankee historians who talk about Texas being "stolen" from Mexico.
Absolutely right, Mr. Roberts!!
"Texas was an independent Republic for 10 years!"
-- Why didnt you remain independent then?
"As for Texas, we Texans fought a war of secession from dictatorial Mexico and won! Period."--What of it.You had no rightful claim to that land simply because you disapproved of its form of government.If you oppose "dictatorships", why go and live in one?
Question:How many "secessions" does it take to make a rank hypocrite?
Also,compliments on that splendid victory.If I recall correctly, you fellas went on to lose another war shortly thereafter.Live by the sword...
"I can’t stand Yankee historians who talk about Texas being “stolen” from Mexico."--There there ole boy,no need to get upset.If your offended by it all,consider the words of Napoleon when he said;"only the truth offends."And that bit about Yankees is lame.Critics of the South are not necessarily "Yankee";any more than critics of "capitalism" are necesarilly Marxist.