In the midst of all the United States current economic crises, now, more than ever, we are in need of criticism, and lots of it. The best decisions are made when the decision maker is challenged from all angles because if nobody ever questions the decision makers, then the right decisions never get made. The unfortunate truth of the matter is that we all, to some degree, think inside-out. It is human nature, and more specifically, Darwinism. In American middle to upper class society, we have evolved from surviving on a day-to-day basis, to working hard in order to be content with our own lives. But because every person’s definition of being “content” or happy doesn’t necessarily coincide with the next, we have major differences of beliefs on how things should be run. The person who is currently at the top with the power has his or her idea on how things should be run, and more often than not, over 50% of the United States thinks differently. Does this constant opposition to legislation make it difficult for any tangible plans of action to actually happen? Absolutely! But, even though such opposition slows down the process, it also adds more points of view and helps each piece of legislation to appeal to a wider variety of people. This is where the Public Intellectual comes in.
In Stephen Mack’s blog post, The "Decline" of Public Intellectuals, he discusses the arguments for and against a possible decline in the Public Intellectual. Mr. Mack gives an interesting definition of the role of the Public Intellectual as those who “keep the pot [in our society] boiling.” The fact of the matter is that if at some point there are no Public Intellectuals to be found, our society would crumble. There would be nobody to challenge our decision makers and there would therefore be an absence of any checking mechanism for our law making and law enforcing bodies. Anybody who says that we are lacking Public Intellectuals needs to open their eyes. If we really were in the absence of true Public Intellectuals, the Obama administration wouldn’t be killing themselves to find ways to pass all the new legislation regarding health care and Medicare.
In an effort to stay within the realm of economics, I have looked to Paul Krugman to keep it real. Krugman received his B.A. in economics from Yale, his Ph.D from MIT, and he won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his work with New Trade Theory, so there is no need to question his credentials. Identifying himself as a member of the left side of the political spectrum, Krugman would agree with most everything the Obama administration is trying to accomplish and how they are going about it, right? Wrong. And this is what sets Krugman and the general Public Intellectual apart from the rest of society. Just because you voted for that guy currently in the oval office doesn’t mean you have to agree with everything he says. And Krugman does just that.
With all the technology available to us, the general public finally has very accessible platforms where they can present their ideas and beliefs to the world. And because there is always a risk of somebody openly disagreeing with you, it forces those who blog to think twice about what they say (although this is a generalization). Now, everybody has the opportunity to be a public intellectual and doesn’t have to pay a dime. One can find millions of blogs all about the same topic, some written by professors at Harvard, and some by written by a 15-year old in high school. It doesn’t matter. There is no decline in the Public Intellectual because we have too many opportunities available to at least try to be one, and the public is trying. Nobody has been able to watch the news for more than an hour without watching a piece about Obama’s legislation regarding health care. As long as the President is unable to draft and pass a bill in the same day without anybody arguing, then we are on the right path and shouldn’t question the future of our society.
