 |
|
Friday, March 2, 2007
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)
Defining public intellectuals down
The passing earlier this week of Arthur Schlesinger Jr. caused some gnashing of teeth at Tapped about where the next generation of public intellectuals will be found. Ezra Klein writes: So who takes their place? Will Sean Wilentz or Michael Kazin be remembered as Arthur Schlesinger is, because I don't think Doris Kearns Goodwin or Stephen Ambrose possess the grand moral compass necessary to claim the mantle. The Clinton administration had a Kennedy-esque aura of intellectual ferment, but the public intellectuals it furnished are Paul Begala and James Carville. Ira Magaziner, it turned out, lacked star power. I guess the bright spot on the horizon is Barack Obama's campaign, which boasts a glittering orbit of policy advisors and public thinkers whom the Obama camp has taken a Kennedyesque approach to, encouraging them to retain their public profiles. Hence, the world has not lost Samantha Power or Karen Kornbluh, but they are in the inner circle of a presidential candidacy. Maybe that will elevate them. Or maybe we're just done with public intellectuals, and cable news has time for little but public personalities. (underline added)Then there's Marc Schmitt: Obviously, there's no factory for creating new Schlesingers or Galbraiths (although those two families do pretty well) but anything that can be done to change the system of incentives for young academics or would-be academics so that there are rewards to making relevant contributions to public life, rather than incrementally advancing some narrow question within their field, would be good.I've occasionally been accused of falling into the "public intellectual" category, so a few thoughts on this matter: 1) I recognize that there's a Potter-Stewart-"I know it when I see it"-quality to defining a public intellectual, but applying that label to either Begala or Carville is just wrong. Theyposted by Dan on 03.02.07 at 05:10 PM Comments: It's possible that we have more public intellectuals than before. And because of that, and the evolution of media consumption, no one can monopolize attention like Schlesinger did. Is Paul Krugman a public intellectual? Surely he qualifies, right? Some will object that he is too partisan, but what really is the difference between him and Schlesinger, other than that Krugman, unlike Schlesinger, is prominent at a time when those who disagree with him have the ability to widely disseminate their view? How exactly is "public intellectual" defined anyway? If it's an intellectual who tries to disseminate their ideas to the public, then we have hundreds if not thousands of them. If, however, we think of a public intellectual as someone to whom the media goes for a "wise man" perspective when there are important issues to be discussed, why would it be desirable to have anyone in that role? Shouldn't this person have his view challenged like anyone else's? posted by: Hei Lun Chan on 03.02.07 at 05:10 PM [permalink]Ezra Klein wrote: "...I don't think Doris Kearns Goodwin or Well dear old Ezra surely isn't an intellectual I hereby nominate Ezra for "Public Moron". Ezra Klein wrote: "...I don't think Doris Kearns Goodwin or Well dear old Ezra surely isn't an intellectual I hereby nominate Ezra for "Public Moron". Dan's last point provokes a thought: is it better to appoint recognized public intellectuals to government positions, or to recognize people as public intellectuals only after they have served in government positions? The latter definition would exclude people like William F. Buckley, which is obviously absurd. On the other hand there were many Republicans in the 1990s, as there are Democrats today, that assumed something of a public intellectual role with a view toward getting themselves appointed to high office the next time a President of their party was elected. Some of them took on the challenge of filling in the considerable blanks in the eventual candidate's thinking about public policy issues -- once again, as some Democrats are doing today. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. I'm just asking if transparent office-seeking is one of the things people have in mind when they speak of public intellectuals. I hadn't thought so, but my thinking is somewhat old-fashioned, and may in this case have been overtaken by events. On the other hand, what about having exercised actual responsibility as a qualification for public intellectual status? Once again, it is not an ideal sole criterion -- the Buckley problem again -- but I'm thinking it may be a useful consideration for one particular reason. Arthur Schlesinger had a prominent -- as in, "famous" -- but limited role in Kennedy's administration. He was a speechwriter. So over the years have been Harry McPherson, William Safire, Pat Buchanan, Peggy Noonan and David Frum among many others. Public intellectuals, these people? Really? Why? I'm not saying they are evil or worthless or anything like that, just pointing out that the exercise of real responsibility, beyond putting together phrases for someone else to utter in public, is not something a speechwriter does. This is bound to affect any contribution one may later make to public policy. George Kennan had his service as Policy Planning head and as an ambassador to use as a reference point about what worked and what didn't in that field; that kind of reference point doesn't assure infallibility but has to be worth more than what someone like David Frum has to offer. It seems absurd to refer to both these men as public intellectuals. I'm not really offering any conclusions here, just a suggestion that it might be useful not to define the public intellectual and his role too loosely. It shouldn't mean aspiring and former speechwriters for major politicians, unless the person we are talking about brought something else to the table, and Arthur Schlesinger did and William Safire did. posted by: Zathras on 03.02.07 at 05:10 PM [permalink]Post a Comment: |
  |