Lean Left

« Previous | Next »

Making ID Earn It
Posted by Kevin

Amanda, rfiffing off this Majikthise post, says something important about ID:

Again, I think it depends on the circumstances, but Lindsay’s characterization of how the people who rail against elites are usually yearning the hardest to be considered elite is one of the most important themes to grasp in the fakey red/blue divide. Sometimes I am downright astonished when reading the drivel about “liberal elites” at places like Townhall because it’s usually written by people who are compulsive in collecting important-sounding (and often empty) titles for themselves to demonstrate how educated and sophisticated they are. Isn’t every single conservative pundit now a “fellow” at the bare minimum of three separate think tanks? And yet they often make ludicrously simplistic arguments about elite liberals that sell surprisingly well.

And that’s because they are exploiting one of the most powerful narratives in American culture, the narrative that we use to make sense of these two competing urges–it’s the narrative of striving. Or, in other words, “I used to be a poor nobody but I worked hard and got educated and my natural talents shined through and I became wealthy/famous/successful, but I never forgot my humble beginnings.” Go to Townhall and start counting the people that tell this story about themselves.

This is why conservative educational policies and ideas are such a weak spot, because their educational policies are being sold to “common” people as a way to stick it to the elites. And that’s effective for now, but I don’t think it would be very effective in the face of the much more compelling American story of striving. Conservative educational policies are obviously geared towards keeping the little guy down, smashing social mobility and dashing people’s hopes of better things for their children. The three big controversies being fought out in education right now are perfect examples of how conservatives are trying to keep your kids from bettering themselves.

I am not sure that this exact approach would work — it sounds too much like class warfare and conspiracy mongering, things Americans do not in general trust — but I think Lindsay and Amanda have a good explanation of the way that ID uses elitism against science. One of the reasons ID proponents use “teach the controversy” as a talking point is because it plays to American’s sense of fair play and their belief in their own ability to see the truth. The trick, I think, is to turn those emotions around.

I wrote about this earlier, but ID’s position is really one of unearned privilege:

So we have two camps — ID and evolution. The ID camp cannot claim to be science, cannot claim to have any scientific evidence, and cannot claim a serious body of work that supports it. Evolution’s merit has been proven by the constant application of the scientific method. ID advocates claims it should have entry to the same places evolution has entry — science classrooms — based on nothing more than their sense of entitlement based upon their position in society. ID advocates feel entitled to what they have not earned, rewards they have not worked for, and respect they do not deserve — and evolution is elitist?

I think this is one way to attack ID. They simply don’t want to do the hard work required to gain scientific credibility and to earn their way into the classrooms. Science isn’t elitist — it is defending the sanctity of earning your way through hard work. ID is the rich kid who thinks he deserves As because his daddy owns the factory in town. Point out to Americans that ID is the scientific equivalent of grade inflation, or welfare cheating, or Enron cooking the books to boost its stock price — all things that represent the triumph of entitlement over hard work — and think they will understand just how worthless ID is.

August 25th, 2005 Politics, Legal Issues, Church & State, Culture, Education | 2 comments