TNR BLOGS

January 07, 2009 | 6:03 PM
January 07, 2009 | 5:47 PM
January 07, 2009 | 5:11 PM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 07, 2009 | 12:40 PM
January 04, 2009 | 8:54 PM
January 01, 2009 | 8:57 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 07, 2009 | 5:09 PM
January 07, 2009 | 3:00 PM
January 07, 2009 | 1:51 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
21.11.2008
BoBos in Power (cont'd)

One more thing about that David Brooks column that Mike Schaffer nicely deconstructs below. I don't know if Brooks's point that the Obama administration will boast unusually strong academic credentials even holds up.

Here's Brooks's lede:

Jan. 20, 2009, will be a historic day. Barack Obama (Columbia, Harvard Law) will take the oath of office as his wife, Michelle (Princeton, Harvard Law), looks on proudly. Nearby, his foreign policy advisers will stand beaming, including perhaps Hillary Clinton (Wellesley, Yale Law), Jim Steinberg (Harvard, Yale Law) and Susan Rice (Stanford, Oxford D. Phil.).

The domestic policy team will be there, too, including Jason Furman (Harvard, Harvard Ph.D.), Austan Goolsbee (Yale, M.I.T. Ph.D.), Blair Levin (Yale, Yale Law), Peter Orszag (Princeton, London School of Economics Ph.D.) and, of course, the White House Counsel Greg Craig (Harvard, Yale Law).

But you could write a very similar lede for the famously anti-intellectual Bush administration:

Jan. 20, 2001, will be a historic day. George W. Bush (Yale, Harvard Business) will take the oath of office as his father (Yale), looks on proudly. Nearby, his foreign policy advisers will stand beaming, including Donald Rumsfeld (Princeton), John Bolton (Yale, Yale Law), and Paul Wolfowitz (Cornell, University of Chicago Ph.D.).

The domestic policy team will be there, too, including John Ashcroft (Yale, University of Chicago Law), Larry Lindsey (Bowdoin, Harvard Ph.D.), Mitch Daniels (Princeton, Georgetown Law), Glenn Hubbard (Central Florida, Harvard Ph.D.) and, of course, the White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales (Rice, Harvard Law).

Okay, the Obama people might have more slightly impressive undergrad credentials than the Bush folks; and, in the Bush lede, I did have to leave out heavy-hitters like Cheney, Powell, and Rice--because they don't have any Ivy at all on their CV's, save for Cheney, who flunked out of Yale before graduating from the University of Wyoming. What's more, you could argue that, given the age of the Obama folks, their academic credentials mean more (Michelle Obama's Princeton was much more meritocratic than Donald Rumsfeld's). But, all that said, I think that when you get into the upper echelons of government, you inevitably find a lot of people with pretty powerful resumes, so I'm not really sure what Brooks is proving here.

--Jason Zengerle

Posted: Friday, November 21, 2008 12:16 PM with 20 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

JoeyBarbash said:

Yes, some very impressive credentials.

But the message of David Halberstam's "The Best and the Brightest" and of the film about Enron, "The Smartest Guys in the Room,"  is still valid: Not only are such credentials no guarantee of competence or insurance against disaster, they may actually increase the risk.  The harvard and Yale grads and facultty members, from McGeorge Bundy to Donald Rumsfeld, who drove the country into the ditch in Viet Nam and Iraq thought they were so smart that they never considered the possibility that they could be wrong, even after disaster was apparent to everyone else.

November 21, 2008 1:10 PM

timteeter said:

Although Brooks (Chicago) may be suffering from Ivy envy, I think I can safely say that we need not worry about the Yale-Harvard game, since the administration is (finally!) headed by a man from Columbia, where losing football games is a proud tradition.

Go lions!

timteeter (Columbia, Columbia PhD)

November 21, 2008 1:22 PM

prnoonan said:

What a krock.  Where are these guys?

Biden: Delaware, Syracuse Law

Emanuel: Sarah Lawrence, Northwestern

Napolitano: Santa Clara, UVA Law

Daschle: South Dakota State

I'm not knocking any of these schools (in fact, I went to one of them).  But the idea that everyone in the new administration went to Harvard or Yale is absurd.  I mean, sure, maybe they lack someone who went to four shitty colleges in six years just to pick up a BA.  But I for one think thats probably a good thing.

November 21, 2008 1:35 PM

drozenson said:

I suppose Brooks would prefer a graduate of a service academy, like Jimmy Carter.

November 21, 2008 1:42 PM

drdannyu said:

My public school degrees and I will go sob quietly in the corner now.

November 21, 2008 2:14 PM

JEFF FREY said:

A few weeks ago, Brooks was distressed about the anti-intellectual bent of the Republican party, as epitomized by Sarah Palin. Today he clucks at the intellectual credentials of the incoming Obama administration. So which is it? Does he think that a semi-anti-intellectual bent is OK, but too much is bad? More likely this is just more of his characteristic nonsense. Brooks can be sharp on some topics, but his sloppy and lazy thinking on certain topics is pretty obvious.

November 21, 2008 2:26 PM

adaglas said:

Sorry to break it to you, DrDan, but sending away cereal box tops for a degree doesn't qualify as a "public school."  Nor does the University of Antigua Medicle Skool.

November 21, 2008 2:30 PM

tec619 said:

Did Brooks make the air complaint during King George I's (GHWB) W.A.S.P./Ivy Central administration?

November 21, 2008 2:36 PM

drdannyu said:

Antigua?  I wish.  No, I went to U of That One Island in Hawaii with All the Lepers.

November 21, 2008 2:46 PM

jacobt1 said:

"What's more, you could argue that, given the age of the Obama folks, their academic credentials mean more (Michelle Obama's Princeton was much more meritocratic than Donald Rumsfeld's). "

If you don't count affirmative actions.

November 21, 2008 3:35 PM

tec619 said:

We should look at how meritocratic the Ivy's were before the introduction of affirmative action. Why exactly did James Conant introduce aptitude tests at Harvard? Oh, yes. Because . . .(see Wiki entry)

"As the university's president, Conant was instrumental in transforming Harvard, until then still somewhat parochial and New England 'white bread,' into an increasingly diverse and world-class research university. He introduced aptitude tests into the undergraduate admissions system so that students would be chosen for their intellectual promise and merit, rather than their social connections."

November 21, 2008 3:52 PM

jacobt1 said:

Now many colleges are trying to get away with aptitude tests , because too many Asians excel in such tests.

November 21, 2008 4:03 PM

timteeter said:

Simple way to differentiate between Bush ivies and Obama ivies:  how many of these people had previous family that attended the same school or at least another Ivy?  In other words, how many of these people were legacies?

Bush: yes (not to mention Andover)

Obama: no

Rumsfeld? I have no idea.  Ashcroft?  I don't know, but probably not.

November 21, 2008 4:13 PM

jacobt1 said:

"Obama: no" but he was an affirmative actions legacy.  

November 21, 2008 4:27 PM

WoodyBombay said:

Why do you say that, jacob?

November 21, 2008 4:38 PM

drdannyu said:

Woody, asking jacob why he says anything is akin to asking a caged primate why it flings poo.

November 21, 2008 5:02 PM

jacobt1 said:

WoodyBombay ,

"Why do you say that,"

To show that counting legacies or affirmative actions  legacies is a foolish idea.

November 21, 2008 5:23 PM

tec619 said:

What is an affirmative action legacy?  Anyway, Obama attended Occudental College, probably to strenghten his grades, and transferred to Columbia.  And Obama obvisouly learned something in school.

Bush's entry was a result of family legacy--and the Ivies still have plenty of them--and didn't appear to learn much of anything--nor care. Talk about sense of entitlement.

I always thought Ann Richards' remark about GHWB was a bit inaccurate. (Born on third base and thought he hit a triple.) The remark, however, accurately applies to Dubya.

Worse, I sense a bit of Divine Right of Kings vibe coming of Dubya. But conservatives igonored all of faux cowboy's monarchical tendencies. It strange how none Bush's power grabs and mind-set struck the black helicopter crowd as antithetical to the myth of America. Not the unitary executive. The messiah complex. The infallibility (He can't recall one mistake. Not even grammatical.) The I'm above Congress and the courts stance. None of it. Quite strange.

November 21, 2008 5:24 PM

TLaBorn said:

I am guessing Jacob's subscription has not run out yet.  Well at least his nonsensical statements are not his usual full blown plagiarism.

Jacob, I have a question for you.  Have you ever won a position in your life, school, church, cult, republican party, kkk, nazi establishment or some other such hate group through real merit?   Until you actually accomplish something of note it may be a good idea to keep yer mouth and let people assume you know something instead of opening your mouth and proving your an idiot.

November 21, 2008 6:07 PM

sleepyavl said:

jacobt1 is a certified anti-Semite. Just so you guys don't forget who's the scumbag you're dealing with.

As with most anti-Semites, he is imprecise and fact-challenged too. That is distinct from his being a pathological liar. It would be nice to put a crack in his jaw and give some work to his dentist.

November 22, 2008 12:55 AM