November 23, 2006
The 100 Most Influential Americans IX Posted by John Steele Gordon at 11:40 AM EST Mr. Zeitz—his intellectual X-ray vision ever at the ready—now finds “tension” in my latest post, much as he found “strain” in my list. I hadn’t realized that he listed expertise in psychoanalysis among his accomplishments. I haven’t the faintest idea what “tension” might mean in this context, unless it means “bullfeathers,” to use a euphemism. He writes, “On the one hand, Mr. Gordon agrees that it ‘would have been nice [for he and his fellow panelists] to get together . . . and have each explain why X deserved a spot,’ a statement that seems to acknowledge that no person’s list is infallible. On the other hand, with characteristic scorn Mr. Gordon accuses me of endorsing tokenism and writes, ‘American history up to this point has been very white and very male. I’m not about to sprinkle my list with women and nonwhites just to achieve the phony “diversity” that so obsesses academia.’” I am happy to acknowledge that no person’s list is infallible and certainly not mine. I have already admitted that I should have put Martin Luther King, Jr., far higher on the list than I did, and I am sure I could be persuaded (but not instructed) to make many other changes. But I would like Mr. Zeitz to quote the passage of my post wherein I accused him of endorsing tokenism. I merely said that I would not indulge in it myself. What I quoted from him seems, at the least, a bit self-absorbed. “Academia” and “Joshua Zeitz” are not the same thing. He writes, “Like the term ‘liberal,’ Mr. Gordon seems to think that ‘academia’ and ‘diversity’ are dirty words. Why, I don’t know.” Simple. Because liberals and academics have so often made them so in recent decades, with an insufferable elitism and scorn for anyone who holds, however honestly, however well thought out, however buttressed with evidence, a contrary opinion. For proof of that, just read Mr. Zeitz’s many posts regarding what I have written on this blog. They usually drip disdain. As for diversity, I’m all for it. What I’m not for is the faux-diversity the academic establishment so often pursues. They want diversity of color, religious background (but not religious expression, of course; it might “offend” an atheist), gender, sexual orientation, handedness, eye color, favorite football teams, and what have you. What they don’t want is diversity of thought. They will tell the peasants what to think, thank you. A good example of that has been on view in Michigan. There was a proposition on the ballot in the recent election to amend the Michigan Constitution to “ban public institutions from using affirmative-action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes.”
This, it seems to me, is a big step forward toward judging people “by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.” Yet the entire Michigan establishment opposed it—most major politicians, the big newspapers, labor unions, organizations like AARP, all major academic institutions, and so forth. The opponents outspent proponents five-to-one on ads, many of them wildly hyperbolic. (One feminist group’s radio ads said the amendment would be like 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina with regard to women’s rights and women’s health.) Regardless, the amendment carried by 58 percent—a landslide. Only three counties failed to vote in favor. The reaction of the president of the University of Michigan? Essentially, it was, “Just who the hell do the people of this state think they are?” Addressing a rally a few days after the vote, she said, “Diversity matters at Michigan. It matters today, and it will matter tomorrow.” Sounds a bit like George Wallace on the steps of the Alabama capitol in 1963: “I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” The mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick, sounded a similar theme: “We will affirm to the world that affirmative action will be here today, it will be here tomorrow, and there will be affirmative action in the state forever.” Mr. Zeitz writes, “But anyone who states with impunity that ‘American history up to this point has been very white and very male’ is either living in a dream world or has a reflexive and intellectually debilitating aversion to new ideas.” See what I mean? Disagree with me, Mr. Zeitz says, and you are either Walter Mitty or brain dead. So gracious and courtly, these liberal academics. Always so willing to see the other side of the argument. (I might note in passing the use of the word “impunity” here. I believe the First Amendment guarantees that I can write what I please with impunity. I have no idea what word or phrase he meant—”easy assurance,” perhaps?—but since Mr. Zeitz commands the language as well as anyone, a psychoanalyst might sense the hint of a threat, doubtless wishful rather than actual, in his use of the word.) The list I prepared was my best effort to come up with the 100 most influential Americans. That was the assignment. Not the 100 greatest, not the 100 most notable, not the 100 most famous, not the 100 most morally superior. But the 100 most influential in shaping the country that we 300 million now have the enormous good luck and privilege to live in and be a part of. But to have influence in this vale of tears called life, one must have power: political, economic, moral, intellectual, or otherwise. And for much of American history, nonwhites and non-males were systematically excluded from power. That is why, in my opinion, a list of the 100 most influential Americans is going to be short on nonwhites and women. He writes, “To note the influence of Frederick Douglass, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Harriet Tubman, Emily Dickinson, Edith Wharton, Willa Cather, Duke Ellington, Martha Graham, Betty Friedan, Ralph Ellison, or Langston Hughes is hardly to promote tokenism.” I note their greatness with gratitude. I just didn’t think they ranked in the top 100 in influence, as shapers of modern America (although I could probably be talked into Frederick Douglass and maybe Duke Ellington). Unlike Mr. Zeitz, apparently, I’m only human, which is perhaps why I’m more tolerant of others with different opinions and more willing to be persuaded by them if they try to persuade me with arguments, not with disdain for violating the tenets of what amounts to their intellectual religion. Let me give an example: George Perkins Marsh. Never heard of him, right? Well, you’re in good company. My copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica (1966) doesn’t mention him. Yet in 1864 he published a book called Man and Nature, ten years later republished as The Earth as Modified by Human Action. He was the first to note that human action was having a profound and growing impact on the planet as a whole and that we had better do something about it, the sooner the better. You can read more about Marsh here. He was right, of course. The world would be a better place today had people listened to him when he wrote his great book. But they didn’t. The world was just not ready for the great truth he spoke. It was ready when Rachel Carson said the same thing a hundred years later. That is why George Perkins Marsh is not on the list and Rachel Carson is. Was Marsh great? Yes. Was he right? Yes. Was he a voice crying in the wilderness? Alas, yes. But being the last, while it will get you into heaven, won’t get you onto a list of the 100 most influential people.
|
