Humility, Schmumility

My god, Don. You actually used the term "lightyears" to denote distance rather than time. Has that ever been done outside a science book? Congratulations!

"We" is offensive? Try reading Lincoln's Gettysburg address. Or Churchill: We have nothing to fear etc.

the "we" is used to mean inclusiveness, as in The Declaration of Independence...dummy.

Charlie,

Yes, we have an adversarial political system - and there has never been and never will be any other kind. There is nothing honorable in it.

"True enough, Charlie, but it doesn't counter my point. The political class claims to speak for all when the truth is that they speak only for themselves."

I don't understand why you think this. We have an adversarial political system, both sides know they are not speaking for many on the other side. Pres. Bush knows he isn't speaking for Dems and many Dem supporters and Pelosi knows she isn't speaking for Republicans.

Our elected officials make an argument about policy and other things to get elected, we raise our hands and count up the votes. They argue with each other about legislation. They raise their hands and count up the votes. The only arrogance it takes is believing the policies you advocate are better than the policies of the other side. That's not arrogant, it's just having an opinion.

Don,

I'm not sure why you threw McCain's name in at the last:

"no one within a light year of humility wants the kind of power and gaudy glory that Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain so desperately seek."

Your discussion is entirely about Obama, so the insertion of "Mr. McCain" seems completely out of place.

You may define anyone who seeks to be president as lacking sufficient humility for your taste, but in that case what is the point of enumerating Obama's propensity for self worship:

"No truly humble person - no person who understands the limits of his own intelligence and capacity - parades around posing as the first plural pronoun in the outrageously narcissistic chant 'we are the change we have been waiting for.'"

Don't get me wrong Don, I agree with you that Obama lacks humility, but I would rate "Mr. McCain" a piker by comparison. (and I'll bet you agree with me on this)

True enough, Charlie, but it doesn't counter my point. The political class claims to speak for all when the truth is that they speak only for themselves. This doesn't make them not arrogant - it makes them dishonest, self centered, and arrogant.

I would start by pointing out that humility is not necessarily something I consider a virtue. I would prefer accuracy...

However, stating that as president one would put 1,000,000 cars that get 150mpg on the road within 7 years fails both tests, and possibly also the test of basic sanity. The president does not have the power to make that happen, and even if he did aquire it somehow, it would represent a huge breach of law.

We are much farther from such cars than people would like to believe, and other than approving a law passed by congress to pour money into such research, the president has no ability to make that happen. Unless, of course, Obama intends to unviel his affordable 150mpg car he has been secretly building in his basement.

So, just how humble or accurate is it to assert that electing him (Obama) is a necessary and essentially sufficient condition to the appearance of 1,000,000 150-mpg cars within 7 years? How humble or even accurate is it to suggest that he and only he has the incredible foresight and knowledge needed to guide the economy into making large numbers of these cars, and getting consumers to be able to afford them, and subsequently purchase them?

So, no, Per, the correct reaction should be "You are out of your damned mind, and need to be as far from public office as possible."

Is humility an absolute or a relative thing? Though obviously it is not the same thing as a presidency asking for a tenure in the certainty of being able to guide youth and scientific research on the right path is not exactly something brimming with humility either.

I would abhor a humble President if he does wrong and be inclined to accept arrogance if it comes along with good results.

To “promise to get one million 150-mpg cars on the road by 2015” is not really lack of humility but simply an exaggeration for marketing purposes…something like “clean coal” or “organic decaf”.

And by the way the correct reaction should be…. What? Only one million 150-mpg cars on the road by 2015? Surely you must know that that is far from being enough?

Don,

I think I am on board this particular ship.

I believe that by definition anyone who has convinced themself that they should be in political office can never be declared humble or acting with humility.

I could call them "putting on a face", being a "fraud", "dissembling", "shuckin' & jivin'", etc.; but, humble, uh-uh no way no how no time.

Might it be improper if I suggested that the colossal ego that has to accompany that political decision also eliminates the possibility the individual is humble.

Charlie,

I humbly suggest that if you aren't a lawyer, you consider the field.

Mr. Bourdeaux:

You definitely seem to dislike both candidates, but which one do you prefer?

-scott

I don't at all agree that the statement "we have a great econ dept" expresses a clear idea. If you gave economists a list of universities and said "circle the great department" GMU would not get many circles. But at the same time I personally think lots of things about the econ department are great, for one thing the blogs and podcasts and books aimed at lay readers are wonderful additions to the public sphere. And, of course, they do have some nobel prize winners. I think GMU is a great department, and yet in another sense it definetely is not.

-Randy

I am surprised by your comments. I don't think the "we" is America. I think the we is a political movement with he and his supporters. He says "we are the change we've been waiting for" in political speeches to large crowds of supporters. I certainly don't think he is including President Bush, VP Cheney, Don Boudreaux, and a whole host of other people against that mission in the "we" group.

Charlie

Using the word "we" to describe a voluntary group membership is one thing, using it to describe an involuntary group membership such as the nation, society, etc., is another. The arrogance is in the speaker's assumption that he speaks for whoever he choses to include in his "domain".

Charlie,

Is there not something fundementally different (and different in a way that shifts the balance on the humility-arrogance scale) about making the statement, "we have a great econ department here", which actually expresses a pretty clear idea, that the econ department is great in whatever metric that can be debated and evaluated, and proudly proclaiming "we are the change we have been waiting for", which can mean anything and nothing all at the same time, and is just there to be uplifting and inspirational?

"No truly humble person - no person who understands the limits of his own intelligence and capacity - parades around posing as the first plural pronoun in the outrageously narcissistic chant "we are the change we have been waiting for.""

I didn't mean to omit this, but I don't think that it is all persuasive that Obama uses the word "we." If Don said, "We have a great economics department here at GMU." I wouldn't call it an arogant statement. I don't think it is anti-thetical to humility. Even though the claim he is making may not be true. I think saying "we" actually is humble. It is taking the emphasis off the individual and putting it on the group. It would be arogant if Don said, "I'm part of the reason that GMU has a great economics department." Even though if GMU is in fact great, the statement is almost certainly true. The latter statement puts the emphasis on him and not the department. I think in the same way Obama's statement is putting the emphasis on the movement and not the person.

I am not trying to affirm the statement: Barrack Obama is humble, but so far your argument: Barrack Obama is not humble is not backed by persuasive evidence.

I think you can be humble and still run for office. If I were on a job interview and the interviewer asked, "why are you the best person for this job?" I think I would articulate as best as I could my qualities and how they would be useful to the company, even if I humbly thought I might not in fact be the best for the job. I could even believe I was in fact best for the job and be humble, if my humility just moderated how certain I was that I was in fact the best candidate.

I think the same is true in argument. I can passionately argue a side that I believe in, even if I humbly believe that there is a reasonable chance that I am wrong (even as high as 30%-50%). I don't think my humility necessarily preclude me from acting on those beliefs either.

Is setting lofty goals always anti-thetical to humility? If an Olympian sets his or her eyes on a medal or even a gold, is he or she necessarily arrogant if the chances of achieving that goal are small. I think that is an unrealistic burden to put on the humble, and that this was a poorly reasoned letter.

And the truly humble people are the ones writing letters to newspapers and then posting them on their blogs for everyone to read.

I like the 'Letters' feature. I'd love to know which ones are published. Perhaps editing the headline a week after posting it here to reflect its publish status?

Bravo Don!

I have expressed elsewhere my overall dislike of the recurring "letter feature" on this blog, but I have to admit that they are very funny and biting.

The book could be called The Audacity of Nope.

You just don't dare to dream enough!

- muirduck

I'd buy a few copies of that book - for myself and friends and family.

I hope you one day compile the best of your "letters to the editor" into a short book. You have a unique talent for pithy responses to asinine articles and I think many people would enjoy reading them, if only for aesthetic purposes.