Peggy Noonan on cluelessness.

[gaijindabe]

....things in politics, the policy issues we face, are too complicated. That you no sooner bone up on Iraq than you must bone up on stem cells and Putin and the history of marriage. And that having to have views on these things puts too much pressure on politicians, who after all are not Plato. And yet daily they make decisions that are above their pay grade, and above most everyone else's too.

I said this trend tends to favor liberalism, and that if you're of a conspiratorial bent you'd even think they did it on purpose to so muddy the waters that no one could swim, no one could break through to the top, everyone would be caught in the weeds as the current tugs left.

I do wish I'd been explicit in saying: I believe liberals in fact enjoy the complexity, not only because they love government--love to obsess on it, and think it is the last best hope of man on Earth--but because complexity justifies big government. Big complex question. Big complex response. Laws and rumors of laws.

Conservatives don't live for government and don't love it, either. They like other things. They think government is a necessity and a potential evil. This is because they know human nature, and they know humans run governments. Ergo extremely flawed and even damaged people are governing us. Ergo don't give them a big sandbox to play in; keep it as small as possible. That way their depredations will be, by definition, limited.

This point of view--humans are imperfect, governments even more so--is not inherently pessimistic but rather optimistic about other things: life, faith, relationships, gardens. A conservative politician who does not enjoy gardening, reading, taking a walk or seeing a play more than governing is a human warning sign: Don't go there.

I also wish I'd said that if we have to have such complicated issues addressed by law, it is better politicians do it than the courts. Politicians, being as flawed and imperfect as you, me and all newspaper columnists, are at least answerable in a direct and measurable way to the people they represent. The people on the ground in America who vote them in and out.
People punish and reward them for the stands they take. So politicians have to at least seem in touch with the common wisdom back home. The other day 236 congressman out of 433 voted for a constitutional amendment to codify society's wishes that marriage in America be defined, as it has been through recorded history, as something that takes place between a more or less adult man and a more or less adult woman. The House members voted this way for various reasons and with various motives, but one, in many cases, would be this: The people back home would make them pay if they didn't.

There is more often than not a lot of wisdom in the people back home. Certainly more than we have seen the past half century on the bench, which as we all know is a problem, because judges in America are pretty much answerable to no one. Thus we get decisions--Kelo, anyone?--that, right or wrong, lack even the saving grace of reflecting a common human wisdom.

I note here what is to me a mystery. It is that people with lower IQs somehow tend, in our age, to have a greater apprehension of the meaning of things and the reality of life, than do our high-IQ professionals, who often seem, in areas outside their immediate field, startlingly dim. I don't know why intellectuals--or cerebralists or eggheads or IQ hegemonists--seem to miss the most obvious things, floating on untethered by common sense. If you talk to a brilliant scholar at a fine university about social policy, chances are he will say with honest perplexity that he cannot understand--really cannot understand--why people would not want men to marry men, or women women. I wish there were a name for this, for the cluelessness of the more intellectually accomplished, the simpler but truer wisdom of those who are often less lettered and less accomplished.

But I have strayed from my point, which is that in the midst of the increasing complexity we should limit as much as possible what is decided by government, limit its power, and have some actual sympathy for politicians who have to master the arcane subject matter. Better they make decisions than our black-robed masters.

[JSDSKI]

Originally posted by gaijindabe ....things in politics, the policy issues we face, are too complicated.

Modern life is too complicated for little Peggy ? Too bad. Some things in life ARE complicated and require careful analysis and difficult choices.


QUOTE]Originally posted by gaijindabe ....cannot understand--really cannot understand--why people would not want men to marry men, or women women[/QUOTE]

Or why they don't want a government of fundamentalists, by fundamentalists, for fundamentalists to make that choice for them. Interesting conondrum for Peggy - not liking government and all - and yet wanting government to control honest citizens personal lives and the choices they make. Political life is so damnably complicated when citizens honestly disagree.


QUOTE]Originally posted by gaijindabe .... I wish there were a name for this, for the cluelessness of the more intellectually accomplished, the simpler but truer wisdom of those who are often less lettered and less accomplished. [/QUOTE]

As opposed to the purposefully dim choices of those led by ideological simpletons and religious zealots

[MichiganMat]

I think if I took Peggys post and turned every point and issue into its political opposite, it may seem just as rediculous to those who agree with it as it stands right now. Case in point:

?I do wish I'd been explicit in saying: I believe liberals in fact enjoy the complexity, not only because they love government--love to obsess on it, and think it is the last best hope of man on Earth--but because complexity justifies big government. Big complex question. Big complex response. Laws and rumors of laws.

could become....

I do wish I'd been explicit in saying: I believe conservatives in fact enjoy the simplicity, not only because they hate government--hate to obsess on it, and think it is the last prison of man on Earth--but because simplicity justifies small government. Small simple question. Small simple response. No laws and rumors of no laws.

See, rediculous. Instead of trying to polarize us all, Peggy, why don't you roll up your sleeves and teach how to get along? Here, another example:

I note here what is to me a mystery. It is that people with lower IQs somehow tend, in our age, to have a greater apprehension of the meaning of things and the reality of life, than do our high-IQ professionals, who often seem, in areas outside their immediate field, startlingly dim. I don't know why intellectuals--or cerebralists or eggheads or IQ hegemonists--seem to miss the most obvious things, floating on untethered by common sense. If you talk to a brilliant scholar at a fine university about social policy, chances are he will say with honest perplexity that he cannot understand--really cannot understand--why people would not want men to marry men, or women women. I wish there were a name for this, for the cluelessness of the more intellectually accomplished, the simpler but truer wisdom of those who are often less lettered and less accomplished.?

Can become....

I note here what is to me a mystery. It is that people with higher IQs somehow tend, in our age, to have a greater apprehension of the meaning of things and the reality of life, than do our low-IQ trades people, who often seem, in areas outside their immediate field, startlingly dim. I don't know why blue collars--or ditch-diggers or burger flippers or highschool dropouts--seem to miss the most obvious things, floating on untethered by common sense. If you talk to a pizza delivery guy at a fast food restaurant about social policy, chances are he will say with honest perplexity that he cannot understand--really cannot understand--why people would want gay men to marry gay men, or gay women women. I wish there were a name for this, for the cluelessness of the intellectually deficient, the simpler but truer ignorance of those who are often less learned and accomplished.?


Does that describe you? Surely it doesn't, and the first one doesn't describe me either. Instead of spending our energy talking about how different we all are, maybe it would be better spent trying to understand where we're all coming from, eh?

[gaijindabe]

Originally posted by gaijindabe


But I have strayed from my point, which is that in the midst of the increasing complexity we should limit as much as possible what is decided by government, limit its power, and have some actual sympathy for politicians who have to master the arcane subject matter. Better they make decisions than our black-robed masters.

J. if you do not like "idealogical simpletons and religious zealots" you should agree with her last paragraph above.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by gaijindabe
J. if you do not like "idealogical simpletons and religious zealots" you should agree with her last paragraph above.

No, because even that paragraph makes the basic assumption that the Federal government belongs in our bedrooms, back rooms, garages, doctors offices, etc.

I say it does not belong there. That modern "conservatism" has departed from traditional conservatism by becoming fascistic and intrusive.

I do not want Senators and Representatives "boning up" on science or medicine. I want them out of those fields altogether. And I want their involvement in education to be restricted to assuring a degree of fair access. Period.

[gaijindabe]

Originally posted by techweenie


I do not want Senators and Representatives "boning up" on science or medicine. I want them out of those fields altogether.

Until someone wants them to cut a check....

[tobster1911]

Originally posted by gaijindabe
Until someone wants them to cut a check....

LOL, exactly.