Arrogance is more than a wrinkle in an individual’s personality. Today, arrogance has evolved beyond a solitary quirk. It is a major political personality type commonly found in today’s civic ecosystem. Yes, just combine “political”, “personality”, and “type”. Arrogance is a widespread stance of the psyche (personality) that is deeply embedded in a person’s views of governance (political). Indeed, the formulation works the other way: a person’s views of governance are deeply embedded in the stance of the psyche.
The type has a love affair with the word “expert”. This subspecies of the political herd claims a monopoly on “expert”. Either they assert unrivaled possession of knowledge, wisdom, and expertise, or they lay claim to the support of a-l-l “experts”. Whichever way, further debate is arbitrarily proclaimed to be worthless since opposition is tarred as a pack of Neanderthals. It’s a not-so-kind way to end debate in your favor.
The concoction fuels an entire faction – the self-styled “Progressive” – within our grand debate. The two elements of arrogance and Progressivism are in a symbiotic relationship. They interact and reinforce each other.
It’s a politico-psychological complexion in clear contrast to the usual boastful egoism of your run-of-the-mill elected buffoon. Individual political actors may show an excess of confidence in the rightness of their views. That will always be true. The above is something altogether quite different. It’s arrogance with a political dimension.
The inception of political arrogance into the bloodstream arose from academia and the genus of politician who tethered themselves to partisan academics. No better example can be found than in the career of Woodrow Wilson.
The Progressives arose in a time flush with the giddy excitement of scientific discovery and thought that originated in the 19th century and lapped over into the 20th. It was the moment of Darwin, Mendel, Pasteur, Mendeleev, Einstein, the Curies. The modern expert rooted in science is born, and “science” is applied to everything. The expert was no normal individual who is acknowledged as adroit in a particular field of study. A public perception emerges of the sage of science with an excellence of mind capable of addressing all questions – even those matters that are, as it would turn out, beyond their competence.
Confidence was brimming for this new “expert”, chockablock with formal classroom instruction and much practical application of the expertise. In America, production of such individuals fell to the universities whose curriculum came to mirror the German model of fusing teaching and research. The founding of Johns Hopkins University in 1876 was emblematic as the other schools rushed to reform their programs to match. Not surprisingly, Wilson garnered his PhD in the new “political science” at Johns Hopkins.
The cross-fertilization of Germany to America wasn’t limited to academic structure. On the currents came ideas. Prominent was Hegel’s notion of historical progress. The new sciences created a frothy atmosphere for the expectation that we were on the cusp of a new dawn, i.e. progress. It’s the zeitgeist of Hegel’s imagination.
The “spirit of the age” of the swing period from the 19th to the 20th centuries was heavily Darwinian. Darwin’s insights were licentiously applied beyond biology into history and nearly all facets of culture. At the time, John Dewey, from his perch at Columbia University as the new god of education, pinpointed the Progressives’ debt to Darwin:
“The influence of Darwin upon philosophy resides in his having conquered the phenomena of life for the principle of transition, and thereby freed the new logic for application to mind and morals and life.” (see 5 below)
Wilson was particularly fond of the outlook and blended it with all things political. He was quick to jettison what he viewed as the Founders’ antiquated ideas about human nature, natural rights, and limited government. They were said to be Newtonian and outdated. Instead, the proper metaphor is evolution and Darwin.
“The Constitution was founded on the law of gravitation. The government was to exist and move by virtue of the efficacy of “checks and balances.” The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life.” (see 1 below)
What did it mean to accord Darwin the role of epistemological Moses? Answer: A free pass is rhetorically granted to people like Wilson to refashion our Constitutional order to the dictates of the experts in the latest fashions of thought in poli sci departments. The potential exists for a new Constitutional convention, or at least an amendment, with every issue of an academic journal. It’s actually like a more erudite version of revolution without the cordite.
The fate of the republic, the Progressives argued, can’t be placed in the hands of dirty politicos. The old politics was construed as debased by cigar smoke, backroom dealing, and corruption. The new Progressive vision would be, they contended, a sterilized governance under the supposed beneficent judgment of administrators and operatives with baccalaureates.
The upshot was that the rule of law and the limits on government functionaries were effectively neutered. “Don’t lament the happenstance”, the Progressive acolyte would assure us . Wilson and the Progressive legions promised that we’d be better off with the replacement of the Founders’ dinosaur with enlightened experts ensconced in administrative bureaus. Of course, we’ll have less popular sovereignty, but what a small price to pay for the benefits of direction from papered (i.e. degreed) “experts”? Eh?
The scene was set for the establishment of the real fourth branch of government: the administrative state, not elected and unaccountable. But are these purported paragons of knowledge and disinterested discernment – these GS-level employees and their administrative heads – really what they’re cracked up to be? Are they immune to ideological bias? Are they really insulated from pressure group influence? Are they partisan? Are we actually, in other words, any better off than under the naked rule of Tammany Hall?
There’s too much to consider to suggest otherwise, or at least cause a downgrade in the Progressive promise. Let’s throw back the curtain to expose the revolving door between ideological groups and bureaucratic/legislative leadership. For example, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), one of the nation’s premiere environmentalist activist groups, is a personnel pipeline to Democrats on capitol hill and the Obama administration.
If you’re interested, here’s NRDC’s short video of their mission statement to give you some sense of their secular zealotry. Take note of the ideological hyperbole.
The relationship between the Dems and environmental activism in the form of groups like the NRDC is understandable given the natural penchant for ideological birds of a feather to flock together. And its critical for the environmentalist cause to be well entrenched on both the legislative and administrative sides of the policy-making equation. Here’s a sample of the NRDC recruits to the Dems’ effort at political warfare:
- David McCintosh, former air pollution attorney at NRDC, took the position of senior legislative adviser to then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.
- Michael Goo, NRDC’s legislative director on climate issues, appointed as special counsel for Ed Markey (D, Mass.).
- Karen Wayland, NRDC legislative director of six years, became the top staffer on energy and environmental issues for Nancy Pelosi (D, Ca.).
- Melissa Bez, NRDC official, joined the staff of Henry Waxman (D, Ca.).
- Eben Burnham-Snyder, NRDC official, was spokesman for Markey’s House Energy and Environment Subcommittee of 2009.
- Brad Crowell, NRDC official, was environmental aide to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D, R.I.).
- Chris Murray, another NRDC officer, was a staffer for Sen. Evan Bayh’s (D, Ind.).
The relationship was indicative of an influence of what many at the time (2009) called a “NRDC mafia” within the machinery of Democratic Party politics. (see 8 below)
We should dispel with the Progressive contention of a disinterested and apolitical technocrat wisely guiding us through the pitfalls of life. Government employees come to their jobs with biases and prejudices akin to the hoi polloi. Passing through their office doorway isn’t like dipping under the water in baptism. Their weaknesses and prejudices aren’t washed away but carried with them to the desk and the field.
Partisanship is glaringly apparent in certain tranches of government employment. Typical surveys of political party affiliation are inconclusive since most don’t distinguish between, for example, defense and non-defense employment sectors. The numbers lump together all employees thereby diluting any preference that might exist if one could see the pool in its parts. But occasionally figures crop up that are telling.
One was the breakdown of political party contributions by federal employees in executive branch departments for the 2015-2016 election cycle. The difference between 6 and 5 digits (and 4 digits) in political cash is profound. The State Department laundered $299,224 to the Democrats and only $24,241 to the Republicans. Treasury Department employees flooded the zone with $170,897 to the Dems while only managing to scrape together $1,925 for the Republicans. Laborers in the Justice Department shoveled $137,603 to the Dems with only $14,939 going to candidates with an “R” after their name. The same pattern recurs with $139,483 to the D’s and $12,319 for the R’s in the Department of Health & Human Services. The disparity was $120,271/$14,377 in the Energy Department. Adding together the numbers for 7 executive departments in one study produced a 5-to-1 advantage in lucre for the Dems (see 9 below).
The federal government employees’ puppy love for the Dems is understandable. After all, the Democrats are the party of big government and that means job security and splendid compensation packages for big government’s worker bees. It certainly, though, shoots a torpedo through the hull of the disinterested and unbiased technocrat. They are motivated by the same incentives that afflicted Boss Tweed’s ward healers.
Could the average government worker be singularly exceptional in avoiding the crass interests of the unwashed masses? If so, we’d have to accord the bureau’s office doorway, once again, with the magical cleansing powers of something akin to Christian baptism. Somehow that seems to me a bit of stretch.
Ironically, unaccountable and biased government has been slowly gestating since the Pendleton Act of 1887. The act put words to the hope of removing raw patronage from government service. Certainly a noble endeavor. Instead, what we got morphed into an army of folks with some know-how, ladled with bias and self-interest, and its harder to fire them than removing wisdom teeth.
The hubris of the Progressive politician and their knee-jerk claim to ownership of “experts” in and outside of the government are chief characteristics of this political personality type. It stems from a misplaced faith in human omniscience and a forgetfulness of our frailties. Furthermore, it dodges any assessment of these “experts” and their politicized overseers.
We now enter the land of “argument from authority”. Since most politicians, journalists, and laymen only possess, at best, a cursory understanding of science, they resort to the “experts”, with the modifier “all” attached to more easily dispatch those who might disagree. It’s acting out this old syllogism (see 11 below):
- X is an expert on subject Y,
- X claims A. (A is within subject Y.)
- Therefore, A is probably true.
For Progressive politicos, they’d like to replace “probably” with “must”. The language adjustment makes their job of selling their preferred policy prescriptions so much easier while condemning opposition in one fell swoop.
An example of the tactic (one of many that one could cite) occurred in 2014 during the ebola outbreak in West Africa. Controversy erupted over Obama’s decision not to impose a travel ban on infected regions. He tried to lay claim to “experts” as a class when, in fact, expert opinion wasn’t so monolithic in support of his decision.
Here’s part of President Obama’s speech on the issue.
In a poll by SERMO, a leading social network of licensed physicians in the U.S., 75% answered “yes” to a question about whether all travel to the U.S. from West Africa should be halted (see 10 below). This factoid isn’t mentioned to posit one side’s “experts” over another’s. It is mentioned to show an overused rhetorical gambit to win a political fight, the political deoxyribonucleic acid (dna) of Progressive political theater.
Or take this episode that erupted on Fox News’s The Five on June 3. Note the unquestioning reliance on “experts” by the self-designated Progressive Juan Williams as he criticized Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. Watch the sweeping conclusions from such half-witted devotees of “science” as Nancy Pelosi or Jerry Brown.
While Juan is more personable, the politicos are forcefully insistent. Should we say “arrogant”?
Bill Nye, a Cornell graduate in mechanical engineering, approaches disagreement to his faith in climate-change orthodoxy as close to a mental disorder, or maybe a serious mental malfunction. In his mind, all climate oscillation questions are settled; nothing more to do here. Nye’s mind is a closed mind. Yet, Nye appears to be unaware of a general rule of thumb of science: the grander the conclusion, the greater the need for elbow room for modification later. Modesty, however, isn’t a Nye character trait. Watch Nye and Fox News’s Tucker Carlson go at it.
Nye’s suggestion about disagreement being a form of “cognitive dissonance” comes close to Sovietizing opponents. The Soviet authorities labeled dissenters to Soviet and Marxist policies as suffering from “psychopathological mechanisms”. Has the Kremlin left a lasting impression on Nye and others in the Progressive orbit? The episode exposes the arrogance of the ideological zealot hiding behind a veneer of science.
The ploy of political arrogance reminds me of John C. Calhoun’s old blather about the goodness of slavery.
In his calculus , some are suited to rule while others are to be ruled. Specifically, some are meant to own human beings and others are meant to be owned. He contends that it is the natural order of mankind since all are said to prosper.
“A mysterious Providence had brought together two races, from different portions of the globe, and placed them together in nearly equal numbers in the Southern portion of this Union . They were there inseparably united, beyond the possibility of separation. Experience had shown that the existing relation between them secured the peace and happiness of both. Each had improved; the inferior greatly; so much so, that it had attained a degree of civilization never before attained by the black race in any age or country.” (see 13 below)
Calhoun’s view of humankind isn’t that far removed from that of our Progressive friends. There are those fit to govern, and those best fitted to be governed. Elections are seen as wholly unnecessary to confer legitimacy on the arrangement. It is said to be natural.
For the slaveholder in the antebellum South, the distinction is race. For the Progressive, it’s possession of a sheet of paper on a wall. In both worldviews, justification to rule isn’t to hinge on a plebiscite. The masses of “inferiors” – for Calhoun, those with high melanin counts; for Progressives, those without 4 years of academic hoop-jumping – must simply accept the ukases of their “betters”.
My inclination leans toward Thomas Jefferson’s view when he said “that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of god” (see 14 below). Progressives need to get off their horse and recognize that they have no copyright on the truth. Humility is in order, not political arrogance.
Yet, they might realize that relinquishing their boots and spurs would undercut their agenda. Dispensing with the feudalism would leave them in the position of the emperor with no clothes. Sadly, therefore, they’ll cling to their arrogance as an alcoholic to a cheap bottle of whiskey. Sad, truly sad.
RogerG
(I’m also on Facebook at Roger Graf with synopsis and room for comments)
Bibliography and sources:
1. “19th century society and culture”, University of Indiana Northwest, http://www.iun.edu/~hisdcl/h114_2002/nineteenthcentury.htm
2. “Woodrow Wilson: Godfather of Liberalism”, Ronald Pestritto, Graduate Dean and Professor of Politics at Hillsdale College, 7/31/2012, http://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/woodrow-wilson-godfather-liberalism
3. “Woodrow Wilson and the Rejection of the Founders’ Constitution”, Ronald Pestritto, Charles and Lucia Shipley Professor in the American Constitution, Hillsdale College,
4. “Woodrow Wilson on Administration”, First Principles Series,
The Heritage Foundation. Contain Wilson’s “The Study of Administration”, July 1887; http://origin.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/woodrow-wilson-on-administration
5. “Darwin’s Constitution”, Bradley C.S. Watson, National Review, 5/17/2010, https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/338503/darwins-constitution
6. “The Progressive Movement and the Transformation of American Politics”, William Schambra and Thomas West, The Heritage Foundation, 7/18/2007, http://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-progressive-movement-and-the-transformation-american-politics
7. “Transparency Problems: Collusion with Environmental Activists”, EPAFacts, https://epafacts.com/transparency-problems/collusion-with-environmental-activists/. EPA Facts is an online publication of the Environmental Policy Alliance. SourceWatch.org pans the group as a big business front. SourceWatch, though, is no neutral observer. Its leftist bias is given away in its rhetoric. In its article on the Environmental Policy Alliance, the SourceWatch reduces the group to the PR firm Berman & Co. In describing Berman & Co., it says, “The firm operates a network of dozens of front groups, attack-dog web sites, and alleged think tanks that work to counteract minimum wage campaigns, keep wages low for restaurant workers, and to block legislation on food safety, secondhand cigarette smoke, drunk driving, and more.” The synopsis could have been written by any of Bernie Sanders’s campaign staffers.
8. “‘NRDC mafia’ finding homes on Hill, in EPA”, Darren Samuelsohn, NY Times, 3/6/2009, http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/03/06/06greenwire-nrdc-mafia-finding-homes-on-hill-in-epa-10024.html
9. “Which Political Party Receives the Most in Political Contributions from Federal Employees”, Ralph R. Smith, FedSmith.com, 5/19/2016, https://www.fedsmith.com/2016/05/19/which-party-receives-the-most-in-political-contributions-from-federal-employees/
10. “75% of Doctors Support Travel Ban from West Africa According to SERMO Poll”, PR Newswire, 10/14/2014, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/75-of-doctors-support-travel-ban-from-west-africa-according-to-sermo-poll-279014441.html. PR Newswire is a distributor of news releases based in New York City. “The service was created in 1954 to allow companies to electronically send press releases to news organizations ….” (wikipedia).
11. 1942-, Walton, Douglas (Douglas Neil), (2008-01-01). Informal logic : a pragmatic approach. Cambridge University Press.
12. “Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union”, wikipedia.org.
13. “John C. Calhoun Sees ‘Slavery in its true light…'” (1838), document link for W.W. Norton’s textbook Give Me Liberty: An American History, Eric Foner, http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/foner2/contents/ch11/documents02.asp
14. Letter: “Thomas Jefferson to Roger Weightman”, June 24, 1826, Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/214.html