The Spectacle Blog
It was very interesting to read Philip Klein's reaction to Robert Knight's column about conservative intellectuals -- including George Will and Charles Krauthammer -- who have in essence surrendered to gay radicals on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy.
John Guardiano addresses our colleague directly on the issue at hand. My concern, however, extends beyond this narrow question of policy. Philip defended himself Monday:
The main point I was trying to make was that it's hard to debate DADT because one's opinion is so closely tied toward one's perception of homosexuality. As somebody who doesn't view gayness as a big deal one way or the other, I honestly have trouble seeing the problem with allowing gays to openly serve in the military. At the same time, those who oppose lifting the ban start off with the assumption that homosexuality needs to be actively discouraged by society.
Which tends toward confirming the point I made here in my weekend post: This debate has been framed so that one's position on a matter of policy serves as a barometer of "one's perception of homosexuality," as Klein says. Only one perception of homosexuality is acceptable among the bien pensants, and therefore only one policy conclusion -- the overturning of DADT -- is possible.
This is not to assert that Philip's opinions are insincere. It would be unfair to claim that Philip endorses the repeal of DADT because he fears being disinvited to cocktail parties in Georgetown (or Dupont Circle, for that matter). What I am saying is that Philip's perspective typifies the tautological nature of intellectual consensus, as I explained at my own blog:
What Knight calls intellectual "groupthink" means that viewpoints unpopular among the elite usually lack articulate advocates, and few things are currently less popular among the intelligentsia than "homophobia." . . . Just as with other issues, like immigration, the views of the articulate elite are opposed mainly by Ordinary Americans - people who live their lives outside the elite "bubble" - and those in political life risk ridicule and ostracism if they disagree too loudly with prevailing elite opinion.
Since I began employing the term "Ordinary American" -- it was the title of an American Spectator column in May 2009, for example -- many have wrongly interpreted this phrase as synonymous with "Joe Six-Pack." But the Ordinary American is not necessarily a blue-collar Archie Bunker populist stereotype. What I have in mind, actually, is those who do their work and live their lives outside the world of those whom Friedrich Hayek classified as "intellectuals":
What qualifies him for his job is the wide range of subjects on which he can readily talk and write, and a position or habits through which he becomes acquainted with new ideas sooner than those to whom he addresses himself. . . .
The class does not consist of only journalists, teachers, ministers, lecturers, publicists, radio commentators, writers of fiction, cartoonists, and artists . . . The class also includes many professional men and technicians, such as scientists and doctors, who through their habitual intercourse with the printed word become carriers of new ideas outside their own fields and who, because of their expert knowledge of their own subjects, are listened with respect on most others. There is little that the ordinary man of today learns about events or ideas except through the medium of this class; and outside our special fields of work we are in this respect almost all ordinary men, dependent for our information and instruction on those who make it their job to keep abreast of opinion. It is the intellectuals in this sense who decide what views and opinions are to reach us, which facts are important enough to be told to us, and in what form and from what angle they are to be presented.
If any particular opinion attains dominance among the intellectuals, then, the man who disagrees will generally be unable to cite any recognized authority in support of his position. (Among the elite, it goes without saying, the Bible has no authority.) There are few if any researchers seeking data or reporters pursuing news that contradicts the prevailing intellectual orthodoxy. If such research and reporting does exist, there are few editors, publishers or broadcasting producers who will present it as "important enough to be told to us." Nor will such heterodox thought find its way into classrooms and textbooks and, because higher education is quite nearly a sine qua non of membership in the intelligentsia, the educated man who questions the elite consensus is viewed as an eccentric, a kook.
This is how information and opinion controverting the intellectual consensus becomes, in a word, marginalized.
The Ordinary American often has opinions and beliefs that contradict the intellectual consensus, yet is usually at a loss to articulate his dissent in a way that the intelligentsia will recognize as valid. This is not because the Ordinary American is ignorant or stupid, but rather because his educational and professional career has not permitted him to acquire, refine and habitually practice the skill-set necessary to meet the intellectuals on their home field.
The articulate elite therefore appear to possess a monopoly on wisdom, and dissenters are reduced to sputtering indignation, feeling that they have somehow been cheated in a rigged game.
Furthermore, defenders of the intellectual consensus wield fearsome weapons against potential adversaries. Liberal blogger Ron Chusid denounced Knight and me as members of the "American Taliban" and "the authoritarian right." The purpose of labeling antagonists with these epithets, of course, is to discourage emulation, to make an example of the heterodox critic, to warn anyone tempted to agree with the dissenters that they too will meet this gruesome fate: Expulsion from the ranks of the bien pensants.
Philip Klein specializes in the discussion of politics and policy, and his response to Robert Knight is aimed merely at defending his own position on the issue of DADT. While siding with Knight and opposing Klein on that issue, my larger concern is the self-confirming nature of consensus among the elite.
To state it concisely and directly: I contend that, like many other well-educated Americans of his generation, my young friend Philip has been indoctrinated.
This is a charge Philip can be expected to dispute vehemently. A half-century ago, in Up From Liberalism, William F. Buckley Jr. wrote:
In the hands of a skillful indoctrinator, the average student not only thinks what the indoctrinator wants him to think . . . but is altogether positive that he has arrived at his position by independent intellectual exertion. This man is outraged by the suggestion that he is the flesh-and-blood tribute to the success of his indoctrinators . . .
J'accuse!
View all comments (22) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
Related Blog Posts
More Blog Posts by Robert Stacy McCain
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/06/08/god-and-man-at-the-american-sp
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Who's Really Conservative?
- Barney Shuffles Off
- Progressive Derangements
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Oldefarte| 6.8.10 @ 1:07PM
One can intellualize the GAY MARRIAGE, DADT, LGBT etc issues all day, but it still comes down to the NATURAL LAW [Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's WIFE; the first two creatures being a MAN and a WOMAN; honor thy FATHER and thy MOTHER, etc]!!!!!!
Dixie Pixie| 6.8.10 @ 1:46PM
….. feeling that they have been cheated in a rigged game ......
You can get better odds at a Mob owned casino.
Try shut out, dissed, ridiculed, tossed out, when not ignored.
Alan Brooks| 6.8.10 @ 2:48PM
Goldwater wanted gays in the military.
Good enough for him, good enough for me.
As for you? that's your business.
Sheila| 6.8.10 @ 3:07PM
Alan Brooks - the issue is not whether or not there are gays serving in the military (there obviously are and always have been); the issue is official recognition and advocacy of homosexual acts by serving military members. This is a fairly basic distinction, constantly ignored or muddied by those who insist they don't believe in legislating morality. And again, to return to basics, we are not speaking of regular society here but a closed society for a specific force with specific rules. Does endorsing open homosexual acts and/or behavior help or hinder this group in achieving its goals (i.e. military victory)? All the rest is PC pabulum. As far as accepting as from on high any particular position by any particular politician, you're merely following the footsteps of the damned. I think for myself, I don't give a damn what anyone else says, and I oppose repealing DADT.
Chris| 6.8.10 @ 3:10PM
Will and Krauthammer are the last of the great conservative intellectuals. Those opposed are yahoos.
Tim| 6.8.10 @ 4:11PM
Why the persistent prodding McCain? Should Klein turn his back on the dirty elites and surrender to your bullying instead?
Robert Stacy McCain| 6.8.10 @ 4:31PM
"Bullying"? I'd urge you to re-read the post, Tim. I'm trying to make a point about the nature of the intellectual elite, and how they defend what Orwell called the "smelly little orthodoxies" of the prevailing consensus.
Tim| 6.9.10 @ 1:48PM
But are you not, as an essayist for AMSPEC, ipso facto a member of the intellectul elite?
I say you are, and that means this is not about ordinary people versus intellectuals- it's two intellectuals arguing with each other. In that context it looks like bullying to me, but no one ever accused me of being an intellectual...
Estragon| 6.8.10 @ 4:26PM
The greater question is: shall the laws be changed when Society reaches a consensus, or when an elite of opinion-makers reach a consensus?
The elites have already dealt a mighty blow to the family with destructive ideas and policies (Women and Minorities Hardest Hit!) about marriage and parenthood. Are we to concede to them every inch of ground they seek to take in the culture, or is there any point at which fighting them becomes palatable?
Alan Brooks ~ Am I to then assume you are endorsing all of Goldwater's positions in toto?
matthew s harrison| 6.8.10 @ 4:59PM
Stacey-He starts out in his response with a large and untrue assumption-that those of us who oppose DADT think homosexuality should be banned from our society. To the contrary. While a good deal of devout Christians look at homosexuality as a sin, etc, the vast majority of us look at it simply, and pragmatically.
1) What fighting man do you know, in any branch will feel okay showering with openly gay colleagues?
2) What corpsman, or medic will actively render aid to an openly gay colleague, knowing the possible life ending ramifications?
3) The Navy for instance, has had to go to great expense, retrofitting, and reorganizing everything from GMF's to Subs, to accommodate females on-board....what additional cost and time will accommodations for gays cost the 5 branches combined?
There is no question that a patriotic American should be able to serve their country. The question, further to those above is simple: Is our military there to satisfy left-wing diversity desires, or to protect America? Obviously rhetorical, the question and answer are simple. I, and most of America, could give a hang about the feelings of gays, when considering the safety of our families, our country, and our livelihoods. This is not rocket science. The country is in constant jeopardy, and if the morale of our armed services is effected by PDA's by men, soldiers being afraid to shower, dress, etc around their fellow service members, render aid to colleagues(which would be a great moral dilemma), then we are unsafe. And if we are all unsafe, then the answer to the rhetorical question becomes more blaring that before. Forcing left-wing "tolerance" down the throats of our military is not only unfair, but it is suicide.
Plain and simple-there is no room in any branch of the military for all of the PC bull-crap that has been heaped on it by career officers who are better politicians than warriors! I believe it was the old man at Annapolis last year who said "My number one priority at Annapolis is diversity." If the number one priority at one of our military academies is diversity, then we are already dead-we just don't yet know it!
Ran / Si Vis Pacem| 6.8.10 @ 5:39PM
"At the same time, those who oppose lifting the ban start off with the assumption that homosexuality needs to be actively discouraged by society. " Wha...?
Not so. Totally different starting point for most people, I suspect. Many begin from the same place as those with daughters: A simple recognition that there exists the almost uniquely male tendency of predation. Having to bother with unwanted advances is an unnecessary and unwelcome distraction in an otherwise organized and rational endeavor. (Given, however, that women are permitted to serve, it behooves men to permit subjecting themselves to similar conditions. "Get a helmet" as they say. Where were we? Right...)
On the other hand, there's the simple fact that anyone's expression of sexuality - hetero or homo or kinky, whatever - is out of place in a military environment. There is nothing uniquely "anti-gay" in DADT insofar as it applies across the board. Into goats or sheep? Geriatric golden retrievers? Great. Save it for off-duty, back home in Princeton.
The point being, there's a consensus about DADT that assumes it's "anti-gay" - and it's false, too.
Thanks RSM for the thoughtful post.
Javier| 6.8.10 @ 5:55PM
Now that polls and experience reveal that homosexual relationships are accepted by the majority ( 52% in May 2010 Gallup poll); openly gay soldiers supported by the vast majority (78% in May 2010 Gallup poll); a growing majority of Americans now support same-sex marriage (40% in Gallup poll); and, an overwhelming majority of young adult Americans are pro-gay, including a growing chunk of young evangelicals.
I suspect that you are implicitly claiming that elites have brainwashed Ordinary Americans, especially those under 50 years old. Nevertheless, your contention that Ordinary Americans are anti-gay is way out of date.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/rodd.....attle.html
matthew s harrison| 6.8.10 @ 6:16PM
Javier-a leftwing slanted poll notwithstanding, it is apparent throughout our society that most are so sick and tired of having homosexuality jammed down our throats that we just "don't care". Mind you, the vast majority of the 350 or so million Americans have never served, and thus don't know thing one about what the military is, does, or is for, so to base a decision on weakening an already decimated military with open homosexuality, on what a bunch of college kids "accept" is lunacy, dangerous, and moronic.
Anyone who is in the military, who is allowed to speak without fear of reprisal from politician wannabe commanders will tell you-it is a terrible idea-and much of our best talent will leave the ranks, to protect themselves from the destruction of morale when the gays start demanding special treatment, etc.
Libtards need to understand, it is not wise to base decisions for our military strength, or lack thereof, on political correctness! Pushing homosexuals on the heartland seems to be a new pass-time for the left.....and it is destroying morale in our country-not just our military. I don't need to watch men kissing men, bedding me, or women doing the same, on primetime, daytime, or anytime. I certainly wouldn't want to wake up in a hole in Afghanistan and witness the same between two of my colleagues!
LiveFreeOrDie| 6.8.10 @ 6:56PM
Gay marriage has been soundly rejected whenever it's come down to a vote so take your slanted polls elsewhere.
John3| 6.8.10 @ 6:04PM
Classical relativism: even if 55, 75 or 95% of Americans agree with anything does not make that thing correct. The liberal left will use anything to their advantage as long as it serves their purpose.
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.8.10 @ 6:50PM
Mr. McCain,
I take your point about "intellectuals vs. Ordinary Americans".
Extraordinary Americans wear our country's uniform. I will leave the issue to them..."don't pinch my butt...I won't pinch yours".
We have the same issues here, though. Our "resident intellectuals" often forget who feeds them...uh...us "ordinary" Americans that know how to do stuff.
Nate| 6.8.10 @ 7:23PM
Does it matter that over 70% of "ordinary Americans" APPROVE of gays serving in the military?
On what other topic, I ask, do 70% of Americans agree?
Bruce| 6.8.10 @ 8:27PM
Your source for that astounding statement, Nate? Do you actually know ANYONE who was polled on that question? Surely if fully 70% of "ordinary Americans" approved, at least a few of us should knhow someone polled - yet I don't. Hmmmm....
The issue is not whether or not we have a "problem with gayness." I don't - I don't much care what ordinary folks do in private. What I do have a problem with is this constant push by the left of the great social experiment of forcing acceptance of gays (and other social agenda issues) on both the military and the police, who operate at an entirely different level than normal citizens. Perhaps Mr. Kline should take a few minutes to read an article I posted on my blog some time back on this issue from the perspective of our warfighters.
http://brucesplace.net/Wordpress/?p=1888
Nate| 6.8.10 @ 8:55PM
Oh come on Bruce. Just because I wasn't polled doesn't mean I can't believe the polls didn't happen or their results. This figure -- 70% or so -- has held pretty solid for a couple of years.
Honestly, I think people on the far right are sometimes a little unclear about the nature of the American spirit: most Americans, the vast majority, are political pragmatists. Fairness and good sense prevail.
When the military kicks out over 10,000 people in a decade -- a decade of two wars -- for homosexuality, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to the taxpayer -- including personnel who are trained in Arabic -- people are not so worried about what Pat Robertson thinks.
Marcos| 6.8.10 @ 9:32PM
Open gays in the military is not an experiment when virtually every Western country and a growing number of Latin American countries has successfully integrated openly gay soldiers into their services.
The primitive, Old World views of the decreasing minority who still oppose openly gay soldiers are undermined the chorus ofWestern countries testifying that they did not suffer any detriment to the morale, cohesion, or recruitment of their troops by having gays and bisexuals serve openly. The chorus in favor of openly gay servicemen includes our most pivotal military allies, the UK, Israel, Argentina, Canada, Germany, and Spain.
In fact, the integration of openly gay and bisexual service members has been so successful that many countries purposely and tenaciously recruit gays and bisexuals, as Australia does.
BobS| 6.9.10 @ 3:05AM
"Will and Krauthammer are the last of the great conservative intellectuals. Those opposed are yahoos. "
IOW in addition to being called (smeared as) a: racist, homophobe, anti-smite, bigot, nazi and white supremacist when you are winning an argument with a liberal, yahoos have been added to the list.
Doggone. My head hurts. That list is sure getting long.
And if you write 'em down to help you remember, you're sure to be called a cheater.
Can't win for trying.
ChrisIsRIGHT| 6.10.10 @ 1:41PM
For what it's worth, I'm a gay man who identifies as conservative. I SUPPORT DADT as a policy (well, 99% of it). Clearly, there must be reasons other than "homophobia" for standing against a repeal, as I am not self-hating or self-fearing.
What's different in this country, rather than in many countries who integrate openly gay service men and women into their military, is the dogmatic "if you're not 100% pro-gay, you must be anti-gay" stance taken by the left. Take the opposition to Prop 8 (gay marriage ban) in CA, which operates under the name "NOH8."
The liberal media portrays gays in a certain way, which I think has much more to do with the opposition to openly gay service people than the attitude of gay men and women who do serve in the military today.
If anyone is interested in my perspective, it can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/2f2qwov
I dislike the marginalizing of any opinion based on an assumed underlying motivation. Honest dialogue should stand on its own merits, without an elitist reading bigotry or homophobia into it.