This may be the golden age of presumptuous ignorance. The most recent demonstrations of that are the Occupy Wall Street mobs. It is doubtful how many of these semi-literate sloganizers could tell the difference between a stock and a bond.
Yet there they are, mouthing off about Wall Street on television, cheered on by politicians and the media. If this is not a golden age of presumptuous ignorance, perhaps it should be called a brass age.
No one has more brass than the president of the United States, though his brass may be more polished than that of the Occupy Wall Street mobs. When Barack Obama speaks loftily about “investing in the industries of the future,” does anyone ask: What in the world would qualify him to know what are the industries of the future?
Advertisement
Why would people who have spent their careers in politics know more about investing than people who have spent their careers as investors?
Presumptuous ignorance is not confined to politicians or rowdy political activists, by any means. From time to time, I get a huffy letter or e-mail from a reader who begins, “You obviously don’t know what you are talking about . . . ”
The particular subject may be one on which my research assistants and I have amassed piles of research material and official statistics. It may even be a subject on which I have written a few books, but somehow the presumptuously ignorant just know that I didn’t really study that issue, because my conclusions don’t agree with theirs or with what they have heard.
At one time I was foolish enough to try to reason with such people. But one of the best New Year’s resolutions I ever made, some years ago, was to stop trying to reason with unreasonable people. It has been good for my blood pressure and probably for my health in general.
A recent column of mine that mentioned the “indirect subsidies” from the government to the Postal Service brought the presumptuously ignorant out in force, fighting mad.
Because the government does not directly subsidize the current operating expenses of the Postal Service, that is supposed to show that the Postal Service pays its own way and costs the taxpayers nothing.
Politicians may be crooks but they are not fools. Easily observable direct subsidies can create a political problem. Far better to set up an arrangement that will allow government-sponsored enterprises — whether the Postal Service, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or the Tennessee Valley Authority — to operate in such a way that they can claim to be self-supporting and not costing the taxpayers anything, no matter how much indirect subsidy they get.
As just one example, the Postal Service has a multi-billion-dollar line of credit at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Hey, we could all use a few billions, every now and then, to get us over the rough spots. But we are not the Postal Service.
Theoretically, the Postal Service is going to pay it all back some day, and that theoretical possibility keeps it from being called a direct subsidy. The Postal Service is also exempt from paying taxes, among other exemptions it has from costs that other businesses have to pay.
Exemption from taxes, and from other requirements that apply to other businesses, are also not called subsidies. For people who mistake words for realities, that is enough for them to buy the political line — and to get huffy with those who don’t.
Loan guarantees are a favorite form of hidden subsidies for all sorts of special interests. At a given point in time, it can be said that these guarantees cost the taxpayers nothing. But when they suddenly do cost something — as with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — they can cost billions.
One of the reasons for so much presumptuous ignorance flourishing in our time may be the emphasis on “self-esteem” in our schools and colleges. Children not yet a decade old have been encouraged, or even required, to write letters to public figures, sounding off on issues ranging from taxes to nuclear missiles.
Our schools begin promoting presumptuous ignorance early on. It is apparently one of the few things they teach well. The end result is people without much knowledge, but with a lot of brass.
What constitutes "brain-washing"? What constitutes child abuse? Our educators cease to educate when they impress their political views as dogma on the innocent.
"It is doubtful how many of these semi-literate sloganizers could tell the difference between a stock and a bond."
Surely, they will tell you that stock is what you use to make good soup, and a bond is what you have with your pets.
As far as the President's brass being more polished, I think the legacy media have been polishing his brass with relentless ardor for some time now.
The Post Office as an organization, is a metaphor for all government. When faced with declining demand for its main product, first class mail, the USPS raised prices, because a bureaucrat believes increasing the price has no affect on demand.
You nailed it; we’ve devolved from the Age of Reason to the Age of Unreason.
This was not a spontaneous event mind you but a carefully orchestrated move by those ever well meaning liberals to make us better. Detailed curriculums established by the Department of Education, teaching the art of debate stifling by our new 2.5th column, The University (Abelard is rolling in his grave) all premeditated.
You want proof…have you ever watched Bill O’Reilly’ PhD parade? Nightly you can watch esteemed academics like Prof. Marc Lamont Hill, or Prof. Caroline Heldman blithely ignoring or denying fact, berating with half truths, obfuscating with emotionalism, refusing dialogue and regarding any conservative with distain and attacking principled arguments with slander. They are essentially liars…except they are such ‘true believers’ they are completely impervious to the realization that what spews out of their mouths is completely disconnected from reality. Yet it is to these that we entrust our children’s education.
From Pre-K through University our children learn a twisted one sided world view and if that view is not being enacted, they are taught to shout in the streets, shout down opponents, screaming and rioting is their American birthright for democracy is in the streets!
Meanwhile the other 2.5th column (get it…2.5 + 2.5 = 5) the media, repeats and amplifies the message across every news source available.
I hope I talk hyperbole and Dr. Sowell is right because if we are in a brass age, like the long ago bronze age that was followed by an iron age, perhaps we are heading for a resilient metal age…heck I’ll take an iron age led by the likes of the iron lady any day. On the other hand if we truly are in the antithesis of the Age of Reason, an opposite of The Enlightenment, we are headed for dark times indeed.
Critical thinking is no longer taught embedded in History and English courses, or anywhere else in the high school curriculum. As a result, students are not challenged to defend their positions, pro or con. They get one side --- the PC side ---served up as unalloyed FACT. Worse, they are taught that those who deviate from the Liberal Canon are mean-spirited, benighted and evil. Then they go to college where they get more of same.
So it's no wonder they emerge as mind-numbed robots.
Just once, I would like to see O'Reilly challenge "Doctor" Lamont Hill and "Doctor" Heldman to argue the other side of a position. I'd bet they.... could...not.....do it.
What possibly could better than a "debate" between you and the likes of Al Sharpton or Cornell West or Tavis Smiley and/or the best of all? You and BHO?
It would be beneath you to do so but nothing could or would be better...
This is what our Conservative movement needs...
This what our country needs to begin to rid itself of the Democrats generated racist class-warfare politics...
"What possibly could better than a 'debate' between you and the likes of Al Sharpton or Cornell West or Tavis Smiley and/or the best of all? You and BHO?"
The late Nebraska Senator Roman Hruska, defending the accusation that Nixon Supreme Court nominee G. Harrold Carswell was "mediocre":
"Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos."
(Quick: Name three Supreme Court Justices who historically stand out as pillars of American jurisprudence. Off the top of my head, I think of Oliver Wendell Holmestein, John Mashallberg, And Earl Warren-Cohen . . . don't you?)
That you thought to "write" "off the top of my head" can be excused...that you actually "wrote" "off the top of my head" can't be excused for the obvious reason.
C'mon MikeB, you're better than this sort of thing.
Look, yesterday I wrote a comment that could have been interpreted as referring to someone else's Point #1 in a different post when I was actually referring to my own Point #1 in the same post. I acknowledged my error.
All we need to do here is exercise a little integrity. Your post was "all black" when it didn't have to be. I am not accusing you of racism - only of insensitivity. Remember Jonah's column applauding drone strikes? The NRO editor wasn't thinking, and the column had a picture of Obama and a headline beneath it which matched the column perfectly: "Some people deserve to be killed." The picture and the headline just didn't, um, fit together.
Well! Well! The Philosopher King has arrived or should be the arriviste has morphed into a philosopher king. Since Sowell gained a Phd with an unremarkable thesis on J.B.Say, he has pontificated and apostrophised on every subject known to man. Now he lectures people on intellectual humility - an ability to accept that one has limitations in terms of expertise in particular fields.
Can you cite an example of Dr. Sowell writing something stupid or unsubstantiated? I have read several of his books. "The Vision of the Anointed" is quite good. "Black R-dnecks and White Liberals" is also very good. Heal yourself.
