In Defense of Being Educated
Much attention was made of Hillary Clinton's interview last week with USA Today, when she noted that support for Barack Obama "among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
Many found her comments about race divisive and problematic. Overlooked was what she said at the end -- that voters "who had not completed college were supporting me."
Let's look at this a moment.
It's fair to say that people who haven't completed college have less education than those who have completed college. And saying that that someone has less education is the same as saying they're less smart. And calling someone less smart is saying that they're -- well, dumber.
And Hillary Clinton thinks this is a badge of honor?? It's one thing, after all, to call your supporters dumber than your opponent's. It's another to proudly trumpet the fact.
Most politicians tend to present why they are the best, what they can offer to the public to make their constituency a better place. Even Ronald Reagan, who didn't set very high standards of excellence, wanted Americans to seek a "shining city upon a hill." Barack Obama's hope is "Yes, we can," to inspire Americans to reach for their best. Hillary Clinton is proudly saluting that her appeal is to the dumber voters.
Way to pander.
To be very clear, before people leap (which they will) -- calling someone "dumber" is not the same as calling them "dumb." Put two Nobel Prize-winning physicists in a room, and one will be dumber than the other. But they're both really smart people.
And also to be clear, there are college-educated people who snake through four years and leave the ivy-covered walls dumb as a rock. And people who never went past high school who you'd be happy to have them lead you anywhere.
But while we're being clear, let's also be honest.
When picking a surgeon to operate on you -- would you prefer one with a college education, or one of those unlicensed doctors? Why? If you need someone to defend you in court, are you more likely going to want to have an attorney who went to law school, and actually graduated? Yes? Why?
We tend to require college education for the most valued aspects of life. Teachers, for instance. Air traffic controllers. Registered nurses. FBI agents. Nuclear physicists. CPAs. Commercial airline pilot. Veterinarians. On and on...
George Bush says he listens to the generals on the ground. Do you? Good. But you do understand that all those generals went to college. West Point tends to make that a requirement.
By the way, though we disparage them, it's a safe bet (since we elect them) that we want our politicians to have gone to college.
Right now, there are those ready to boil up a faux-cry of "Elitist!" And a faux-cry it is, particularly because it tends to come from the party of actual elitism. But mainly, education has nothing to do with elitism. It has everything to do with human beings wanting the best. Wanting the best for themselves when needing medical care, legal defense, flying on an airplane, safe bridges, military leadership, on and on. Wanting the best, period.
People have different goals, temperaments, life situations, needs. So, some go to college, and others don't. But most people in life want more for their children than themselves, to reach loftier heights. Isn't having a good education generally the goal? Honestly? Don't we all wish for the best for our children? For us?
Honestly?
When denigrating education, understand that it has an effect. Dismissing science, math, history does not exist in a vacuum. Medical research will grow overseas. Other countries will invent computer technology once invented in America. Electronics development will take place internationally, as will the jobs. Creative automobile leadership will occur elsewhere.
Education matters. It has nothing to do with elitism. Being elitist doesn't mean striving for the best, trying to be as talented, smart and accomplished, as qualified as you can be and want others to be. That's the point of life.
Being elitist is dismissing other people's worth as people because they haven't reached your self-imposed standards. That's completely different from wanting everyone to reach that same high standard, and striving to bring that about.
Striving to reach a high standard. Hoping to become the best we can be. Working for our children to do even better than us. It's what we want.
Unless, apparently, you're Hillary Clinton. Then you proclaim that you should be president of the United States specifically because voters who support you are not as educated as your opponent's.
Senator Clinton's claim reminded me of an email I received a few days before. One of her supporters was furious at a prayer I'd written for Ms. Clinton, and said it was the last straw, that he wasn't going to vote for Barack Obama should he become the Democratic nominee. I thanked the fellow for writing, and mentioned that I said Hillary Clinton had much good in her, and might one day be president, suggesting he seemed to have missed that part.
What I didn't write was that anyone who wouldn't vote for a candidate because of what someone other than the candidate believed -- well, that person probably shouldn't vote. But then, I guess when you're going for the "My voters are dumber than yours" base, it's not surprising when occasionally that's what you get.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
My objection to your reasoning is that you equate ignorance or lack of education with stupidity. To call someone dumb is to state that they have an innate lack of intelligence. While you go on to argue that you did not mean that, but, rather, that you believed these voters lacked knowledge or education, you only succeeded in casting your own education into doubt. It was unnecessary to insult those with limited educations, but I imagine you were going for the bumper sticker effect.
George Bush has a Harvard or Yale degree, I don't remember which. Harry Truman graduated from High School. Enough said!
To the everlasting shame of Harvard and Yale, Bush actually has a degree from each. He got his undergraduate degree in history (believe it or not) at Yale. Then he got his famous MBA from Harvard.
To its credit, the University of Texas rejected Bush's application for law school. This may serve in part, however, to explain Bush's hostility to lawyers and the law.
The statement itself was very clumsy on her part, and I don't mind if it hurts her chances in the long run. But she's making a statement that is a fact- Bill Maher often gets into a lot of trouble because things are stated in a way that people are not accustomed to.
I think what she's saying is that she appeals to a bloc of voters that have been disnenfranchised their whole lives. There's nothing wrong with that. The poverty of the area creates a demographic of disenfranchisement. "Hillbillies". "Rednecks".
How many people know that the original "rednecks" were union organizers for coal mine workers who had become chattel, serfs, to the owners of the coal companies (and the company store, and the company housing)? They were called "rednecks" because they wore red bandanas on their necks to identify themselves as union organizers.
And of course you can't equate education with intelligence. Einstein was educated enough to be a patent clerk. Kafka was a civil servant.
They're not "dumb". There were those who wanted to prove that African-Americans (or native South Africans) are actually inferior in intelligence. We know how that turned out.
And using the word "dumb" in this context is actually just more elitism.
"I guess when you're going for the "My voters are dumber than yours" base, it's not surprising when occasionally that's what you get."
That statement is appaling. You should retract it and apologize.
Well, she appeals to a bloc of voters that have been disenfranchised their whole lives. What do they base their preference on? Presumably, these voters "that have been disenfranchised their whole lives" were also disenfranchised in the Reagan years, the Bush years and the Clinton years. Why the heck do they bother to vote at all? And why did they vote for Reagan twice, for Bush II twice, and Clinton twice if they were being shafted? Clearly they really don't mind being "disenfranchised" because they keep reelecting people who consistently leave them and their children in a situation of being educationally disadvantaged, lacking good jobs and giving them a promised future of more of the same. Maybe they are dumb or maybe they just love it the way things are.
Wow, this article has totally set me straight. How could I not be swayed by the infinte wisdom of all of those college students parading around in those girls gone wild videos; shaking their Obama girl money makers; or falling down drunk at a keg party? After all, they are the modern day Einsteins and like God, they know everything. How could I be fooled into believing that Bill Gates is a brilliant man, despite the fact that he doesn't have a college degree? I have a masters degree and I must have been forced to vote for Hillary Clinton at gun point, yeah right.
No one is saying that educated people don't at all vote for Hillary; we just notice that more people with more education vote for Obama. The same way she is saying that more people with less education vote for her.
The diference is, Obama is not running around saying, 'I have the educated white vote, I have the black vote, I'm more electable than Hillary!'
cont'd
She was quoting the AP and stating the fact that people who support her tend to not have college degrees, but it doesn't mean that they are dumb or all of them are uneducated. You don't need a degree to have common sense. They keep it simple and cannot afford to be swept away by someone they don't know and to blindly trust that this person is able to deal with the bread and butter issues that affect their every day lives. They cannot rely on someone telling them what they can do; they need to believe it through actions. "Actions speak louder than words." "Don't talk about it, be about it." If the "intellectual" democrats want to cast her supporters away as uneducated morons, then they are arrogant elitist who are truely out of touch with the basic needs of every day Americans. Whilst some of you can afford to make a mistake in sending the wrong person to the White House; others cannot rely on your degree to pay their bills, put food on their table; or take care of their basic needs.
Nevertheless, she implied that "intellectual Democrats" do not have common sense and are not "hardworking." THAT is elitist. But there is a difference--this is what we understand that you don't: words ARE actions. They are the most effective actions of all.
Another post on Huffington Post indicated that Hillary because of the large turnout of blue collar (white) workers. Are there no black blue collar workers?
I am an Obama supporter and a PhD candidate and I find this article insulting. While I find Hillary's comments divisive, I do not think it is either productive or attractive for Obama supporters to make an equally divisive counterargument. The Democratic party must remember who we are fighting for in November, and not disparage large swaths of people. Calling people "dumber" due to a lack of education is both inaccurate and antithetical to progressive values. Educational attainment, in many ways, can be corrolated to opportunity. Inner city and rural children in Appalachia are far less likely to go to college or graduate high school than those from affluent suburbs. Coming from the same background, I doubt that the author or myself would have fared any better than the majority of these less privelaged people. Society might be more impressed with your knowledge than that of of a farmer or an auto mechanic, but that shouldn't open them up to your disdain. I would like to ask the author a couple of questions. What is the best pesticide for soy beans? How do you fix the alignment on a Ford Escape? I don't know the answer to these questions. I doubt you do either. So when your toilet gets clogged I guess you'll have to call a dumbass. These people are dying in Iraq. These people have lost their jobs. These people need health care. These people need a Democrat in the White House. Degrading them will not help anyone.
"These people are dying in Iraq. These people have lost their jobs. These people need health care. These people need a Democrat in the White House. Degrading them will not help anyone."
I disagree. "These people" need education first. Many of the developing countries put education on top of their list of priorities even when they have very little money. The parents of the developing countries spend everything they have on the child's education. They see education as a way out of poverty. This country puts less importance on education than the developing countries like India and China. The problem is a cultural one.
Let's, for the sake of argument, give everyone universal healthcare, create jobs for "these people", and end the war. These same people will not be able to sustain their jobs if they cannot compete. If they cannot compete, jobs will then be lost again, and the universal healthcare cannot be sustained. It's a vicious cycle that cannot be sustained unless people get education.
cont'd
BTW, isn't Hollywood supporting Obama and how many of them finished college? I'm black, aren't they always harping about our high drop-out rates? I'm glad we're proving that statistic wrong. Aren't more women graduating college and aren't we supposedly the "only" people supporting Senator Clinton? I"m confused, so I'll get my queue from the media talking heads and they'll tell me who to vote for.
"I have a masters degree and I must have been forced to vote for Hillary Clinton at gun point, yeah right" - "yeah right?!" - poor diction for an MA.
Also, it should be "cue" not "queue".
But the worst of it is, don't shoot the messenger. Clinton is the one who brags about her supporters being uneducated. In that single statement she insults everyone.
I have a Ph.D. Therefore, it is significant that I find this article offensive to Americans who cannot afford a college education. I think Hillary was insulting everybody, but I don't think we have to follow suit.
I agree. This piece never mentions the high cost of a college education. Nonetheless, it was odd for Hillary to boast that her voters were white and had not attended college: "salt of the earth" kind of thing. A phony boast made by someone who graduated from Wellesley and Yale.
It may be that many less educated voters are more gullible, more inclined to vote on the basis of hot-button issues, more xenophobic, more intimidated by or hostile to big-city ideas and customs. Yet this wouldn't apply to all of the less educated voters.
I find it disturbing that Hillary implies some votes are worth more than others. White votes are more valuable than black, apparently, and working-class votes are more valuable than middle-class votes.
I agree, too, that the Republicans don't want an educated citizenry. They want a gullible electorate that can be tricked or manipulated into voting for them. What they really want, as I discovered by reading Bill Buckley's first book, is to pay low, low taxes on their personal, inherited wealth and to pass it on to their children without paying estate taxes. So they trick people by renaming the estate tax "the death tax" and implying that we all pay it. The Republicans pretend to care about abortion, "values," gay marriage, "faith," patriotism, etc., but they really only care about their own $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. They don't care about the common good, the public welfare, or public safety.
Why is it significant that YOU find tha article offensive.
Having just watched a special documentary about west Virginia occupants, I am struck by the correlation between those in support of the (Republican-endorsed) mining interests and those who are in support of Hillary Clinton.
However, both the mining interests -- who make no apologies for poisoning drinking water, contaminating soil and fouling the air -- and Hillary Clinton, seem to share striking similarities in their arguments.
One threatens that environmentalists seek to take away the jobs of those who strip-mine, and the other wants to ensure that their jobs remain secure. Neither mining officials or Hillary Clinton will ever have to drink anything but purified or bottled water.
Neither will have any children play in contaminated grounds, or swim in brown and blackened ponds. Neither will have their friends and family members suffer industrial-waste-ridden cancers. Neither will ever have to live like west Virginians who have nowhere else to go, or even if they did, have the kind of money it would take to get there.
I shudder to think what all of that actually means.
Given the lack of skills I've seen in college students, I'm not sure what even that represents in this country anymore. Still, I'm thinking this whole dumbing-down project is just part of making the mass of Americans poor and reliant on the crappiest cheap imports while those in the top 1% enjoy everything.
Yup ... and to continue voting for leaders who manipulate, indulge in fear and want to rid the country of any "entitlement" programs like SS (let alone initiate health care!) You don't need a college education to realize you're voting against your own self-interests with those pols. The ability to read and analyze could be taught in elementary or high school if we truly cared about educating our citizens. No, it's easier to stick a label like "elitist" to give an "acceptable" excuse for voting against the AA guy. How pathetic. Obama's story is so American -- a fact lost on many of the very people he wants to lift up. The so-called white, blue collar workers HC panders to are largely responsible for giving Bush two terms ... and how's that working for us? I expected better from her.
You just hit the nail on the head.
see below.
That kind of understanding doesn't come only from books or only from experience. It comes from both. The urgent altruistic desire to share this particular wealth with others should never be misinterpreted as arrogance.
I know plenty of folks who are totally un"educated" but wholly wise. But to imply that I don’t know as much just because I am not as "experienced," or to devalue my work because it doesn't meet some arbitrarily chosen qualities worth the modifier, "hard," is not only rude, ignorant, and presumptuous, but also reflects the very difference between the intelligence of the majority of the educated (or educated and experienced) perpetual-youth and the intelligence of the tribal-elder, experienced, "you-young-folk-don't-know-enough-to-wipe-yet" type: we know that knowledge and wisdom and understanding come in many forms from many sources. They think theirs is the best, the only one that works, and the only one that ever will. And THAT is what I call...elitism.
...Just because my hands are not calloused from repeatedly shoving the wicket in the sprocket, or putting the hoe to the dirt, and are instead calloused from typing thousands of words a day for the papers I write, and to the students I teach, does not mean MY work is less important than lunchboxguy's.
However, I just happen to have both a college education AND life experience. No one, and especially Senator Clinton, with all due respect, is in any position to assume I am not also schooled in the streets as well. No one is in any position to assume I have never had to work 50 hours a week just to make the bills, never had to deal with addictions and frustrations, and loss, and never had to use my wits to make my way. No one is in the position to assume that I'm not from the backwoods myself, that I don't down six-packs of PBR regularly, or cruise backroads blastin' Skynyrd before I go home to read 200 pages of Hegel (for which I get paid peanuts), so if she wants to make this about social class and stereotypes, I say bring on the thunder. I have travelled all over this country and and understand that this universe is much bigger than the space between your face and this computer right now. And that it is much, much bigger than me...
Educated elitists wonder why they don't connect with ordinary voters. This article is a good example. The biggest fallacy is the fact that the supposed "intellectuals" can't win Presidential elections. They will probably lose again in 2008. One advantage intelligence does give liberals is their ability to rationalize after the fact. They will have a long laundry list of excuses to explain why they lost once again.
And how isn't HRC an elitist? This is stooopid to the nth degree.
By "intellectual" do you mean someone smart? The difference this time around is that Obama will get the educated and informed voters but will also get the black vote and the hispanic vote (with the help of Ricahrdson and Kennedy). Obama will win in a landslide even without the uneducated working class voters. It's about time the educated and informed get a say in our politics.
It's not about smart vs dumb voters.
It's about Hillary's continued willingness to say and do pretty much anything in order to grab the grass ring.
If she thought that she could win by appealing to pedophiles, she'd be speaking at the NAMBLA convention.
Otay...it is the "BRASS" ring, not the grass ring. What would grass ring even mean? "It's not about smart vs dumb voters." I guess you prove your own point.
Thank you Bob, and spot on! As many others have already said here - it is truly amazing that MSM has completely ducked this obvious labeling of less educated voters. I suppose it is already so offensive that she continues to say it, that no one else wants to be associated by highlighting what the statement is saying about these folks. And what of these good hard working people? Have they not truly realized that HRC has insulted them and their continued support of her political pandering? Equally scary was the data showing that 63% of folks in WV were in favor of her Gas Tax Relief plan - in spite of the EVIDENCE that this was not a sound solution.
I think what is most disgusting is Hillary's obvious pandering to West Virginia's racist sensibilities. I really thought she was better than that. As an AA woman who once admired Hillary, I was appalled that she would utter the words she did about poor, *hard working* whites. What makes this particular segment of voters so damn important to this election? What about all the millions of other hard working Americans, white - black or any color? And the fact is, we are all struggling to some extent. I am a single mom of two boys, make 65k a yr, but in California, that doesn't really go too far. Sure, compared to a WV hillbilly, I am rolling in the dough, but in NYC or CA, not so much. I know she is stooping to any and every level to *win*, but seriously, at what cost? How can we as a nation, stand behind someone who makes these kind of comments? What does that say to the world or more importantly, to our children? She will continue to say things that allienate more voters as this Primary moves forward and I guess this is what the DNC wants. I really do not want to be apart of a party that allows its candidates to say and do anything.
And seriously, I wish Barack would take that damn flag pin off. He doesn't have to prove a damn thing to these backwards minded people.
If Hillary believes being uneducated is the way to go, then maybe Hillary needs to burn her Ivy League diplomas, pull another Bosnia, and mis-speak about her biography, which will then read that she barely finished 6th grade.
Hillary's supporters must not realize that she has insulted them, maligned their reputations, and have told them that BECAUSE THEY ARE SO DUMB THAT THEY WOULD ACTUALLY CHOOSE TO VOTE FOR HER OVER OBAMA.
Are Hillary's supporters so caught up in her political rhetoric that they have failed to notice that they have ACTUALLY .been insulted?
There are many cases to be found where "street" smarts outweigh "book" smarts, but Hillary has told the nation and the WORLD that almost 1/2 of the Democrats are plain DUMB, and therefore are voting for her.
Yet she wants us to believe that she really wants to improve education levels........ IF EDUCATION LEVELS IMPROVE AND PEOPLE BECOME "SMARTER" THEN WHO WILL BE LEFT TO VOTE FOR HER?........HMMMMM DID SHE THINK THAT FAR OUT? ........ HER PROPOSED EDUCATION POLICY AND HER "DUMB" STATEMENT SEEMS LIKE A HUGE DISCONNECT
Her message appears to be "Don't vote for that elitist Harvard-educated lawyer! Vote for me, the elitist Yale-educated lawyer!"
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
