« O'Hanlon and Pollack | Main | Hendrik Hertzberg Has A Blog »
August 03, 2007
Does John Edwards Need an Ivy Education?
Steven Stark writes:
There's no doubt that Edwards made a mistake with the haircut, and that wealthy populist candidates are not easily forgiven for reminding people that they have money. But most candidates on the trail spend a lot on personal appearances -- it's part of the game. [...]
No, Edwards's problem is different, and it's not even about his politics. It's about a piece of paper that hangs -- or doesn't hang -- on the wall of his office.
Edwards, you see, didn't go to Harvard or Yale.
In the Democratic landscape of 2007, that doesn't seem as if it should be a problem. But you'd have to go back to 1984 to find a Democratic nominee (Walter Mondale) who didn't attend one of those elite universities for either college or graduate school.
Last election we had two members of the very same Yale secret society running against each other. This election, one of the frontrunners from the family that controlled the White House for eight of the last 20 years is running to replace a member of the family that's controlled in for twelve of the last 20 years. And it's overwhelmingly likely that whoever we nominate will be from Yale or Harvard. It's quite a sight.
August 3, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
If edwards had an ivy education, he wouldn't be talking about class issues right now.
I'm so disgusted with this party, and the entire political class that it makes it very difficult to see the benefits of adhering to this social contract anymore. Or to see how this really qualifies as a democracy.
Posted by: soullite | Aug 3, 2007 11:23:45 AM
Last election we had two members of the very same Yale secret society running against each other.
So why do we call it a secret society, again? Is it OK for members to talk after a certain number of years have gone by, or what? It just doesn't seem very secret.
Also, what exactly does this mean?
In the same vein, Ivy grads know that your intellectual compass must always point toward New England, even if you live somewhere else.
I can't figure it out, maybe because New England doesn't seem monolithic enough to be treated as one single place for the purposes of an intellectual compass. Sure, it's not that New England is particularly diverse, but still, what's it mean? Kennedys aside, the only political strain that was really dominant in New England during the second half of the 20th century was the Rockefeller Republicans. On the other hand, does it mean socially and culturally liberal like Vermont is today, or pro-intellectualism? I'm tempted to say "if only it were so."
Posted by: Cyrus | Aug 3, 2007 11:54:56 AM
Would it be horribly elitist of me to point out that the Ivy-educated candidates went to Harvard and Yale for law school, not as undergraduates? Sure, Columbia and Wellesley aren't that much better, but the culture of privilege is much more a characteristic of undergraduate colleges.
For that matter, the Yale College era that produced Kerry and Bush wasn't much in evidence at the university by 1973, when Hillary graduated from the law school. There are a few reasons for this; none of them are particularly relevant. But the point is that this isn't another Skull and Bones election.
The dynasty thing is another question.
Posted by: d beth | Aug 3, 2007 12:05:30 PM
your intellectual compass must always point toward New England, even if you live somewhere else.
Seriously, where else is it supposed to point to? While UC Berkeley's and CMU Computer Science department rival's MIT's, U. Chicago's science and economics departments can stand up to anyone else's, and while certainly there are great professors at many major universities across the nation, your "intellectual compass" is inevitably going to point northeast-wards on a regular basis in just about any major research area.
That aside, the author does hit on the class issues associated with Edwards, and this relates to Howard Dean, as well--- there's something a bit "working class" about becoming a litigator or a doctor. The "elite" is supposed to go into investment banking or corporate law. This does work to Edwards' advantage, though-- building the big house and being a plaintiff's lawyer is, basically, what middle-class voters would do themselves if they had the opportunity. For the press corps, though, it all seems a bit vulgar... Edwards represents exactly the sort of aspirationalism they tried to avoid associating with all their lives.
Posted by: Tyro | Aug 3, 2007 12:07:02 PM
I know plenty of elitests who didn't go to Yale or Harvard.
Posted by: Phil | Aug 3, 2007 12:17:16 PM
So why do we call it a secret society, again? Is it OK for members to talk after a certain number of years have gone by, or what? It just doesn't seem very secret. - Cyrus
My family has a long tradition of membership in various "secret societies" (Masons, Odd Fellows, etc). What "secret society" means is that there are secret passwords, etc. Not (necessarily) that the membership is secret.
*
your "intellectual compass" is inevitably going to point northeast-wards on a regular basis in just about any major research area. - Tyro
I dunno about that. In many fields (biology, history), the big names are pretty well distributed accross the country.
You make a point about Dean, though. For all of the attempts to label Dean as "an effete, coastal, latte-swilling liberal elitist", he did have a certain proletarian appeal that was missed by many of us who believed too much the pigeon-holing of him. In many ways, Dean is the Dem. Nixon -- a moderate who's rejected by the moderate elites of the party and hence has rode the wave of a "silent majority" far more ideologically extreme than he.
Posted by: DAS | Aug 3, 2007 12:42:15 PM
Princeton must be so upset about all of this.
Posted by: Elm | Aug 3, 2007 12:44:15 PM
I want to call bullshit on the "Omigod! Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton" meme.
For the period 1980 - 2004...
Number of Presidential elections with a "Bush" on the ballot: six ('80, '84, '88, '92, '00, '04)
Number of Presidential elections with a "Clinton" on the ballot: two ('92, '96)
That's six to two. A 3-1 ratio. If we include '08 and '12, assuming Hillary is elected and re-nominated, that's still six to four, with Clintons way behind.
And who's in the bullpen? Jeb? George P.? Both maybes with established political ambitions. Chelsea? I'd bet a month's pay right now that Chelsea Clinton NEVER runs for office.
I don't worry much about a Clinton dynasty...
Posted by: Jeff | Aug 3, 2007 12:45:35 PM
The spin above is quite interesting by some of the other posters. Light on logic, but heavy on the "convincing if you want to believe" category of thinking.
Yes, there are elite schools. Yes, it does matter for things like perception, career trajectory, etc. I went to a really good school. People would say it was the "Harvard of the South." To which, I and others responded, so you are saying Harvard is the UVa of the North?
Pretending that these aren't factors or that dynastic elements aren't problematic - well you can see in these discussions why we find ourselves where are as a country. Denial.
Posted by: akaison | Aug 3, 2007 1:02:31 PM
"your "intellectual compass" is inevitably going to point northeast-wards on a regular basis in just about any major research area."
Err, look at Shanghai Jiatong Uni.s ranking of research universities. http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2007/ARWU2007_Top100.htm
In the top 20, you have 8 NE universities. Bu tyou also have 7 West Coast Universities.
Yeah, the NE universities have strong research, but the social capital of those universities in terms of elites running the country ain't in the PhD programs - it's in the Law Schools and B-schools. And only Stanford could compete on social capital (but Stanford is out of favor in Wall Street recruiters).
Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan | Aug 3, 2007 1:13:32 PM
Isn't the substantive question where the offspring of the upper five percent of the population get their education? Unless, of course, it's contended that such folks have no greater influence than anyone else on the course of the Republic.
Posted by: WB Reeves | Aug 3, 2007 1:14:26 PM
DAS,
That's a good point, the Masons and Skull & Bones are both fraternities with secret rituals, except that one is open to any male and the other is exclusionary and handpicks its new members.
In that sense S&B is like an ordinary college fraternity (though I believe S&B is coed now). Granted, their members go on to run the country instead of merely, say, the state of Alabama.
The only person I know of (though surely there's been more) to turn down a Skull & Bones invitation was Jacob Weisberg.
Posted by: beowulf | Aug 3, 2007 1:24:00 PM
the social capital of those universities in terms of elites running the country ain't in the PhD programs
True, but it was referring to one's intellectual compass, not one's social orientation, and I was merely interpreting the statement rather literally. Not all of our intellectual capital comes from the northeast, but a bulk of it surely does. As I said, if your intellectual compass is going to point anywhere, where would it point?
(and I would add that there are some, and I'm thinking specifically of a Foreign Affairs article from the 1990s, that dividing the United States into various cultural groups and lumped the northeast, upper midwest, and west coast into the same group. Intellectually, then, one could argue for an Northeast/Michigan/Wisconsin/Chicago/Berkeley/Stanford/UCLA intellectual axis, if one were so inclined)
Isn't the substantive question where the offspring of the upper five percent of the population get their education?
Very good point.
Posted by: Tyro | Aug 3, 2007 1:30:03 PM
The Masons have recently rebranded themselves from a "secret society" to a "society with secrets," which seems more accurate. Back home they're so "secret" that they sponsor the baseball broadcasts.
Posted by: Steve | Aug 3, 2007 1:39:58 PM
Does it count that Edwards' daughter is an Ivey Leaguer?
Posted by: Garuda | Aug 3, 2007 1:49:02 PM
I spelled "Ivy" incorrectly on purpose.
Posted by: Garuda@garuda.com | Aug 3, 2007 1:49:47 PM
Princeton must be so upset about all of this.
Not really, because we run Wall Street (even liberals defend this). And yes, Cate Edwards was in my class.
Posted by: p'ton '06 | Aug 3, 2007 1:53:15 PM
"Not all of our intellectual capital comes from the northeast, but a bulk of it surely does. As I said, if your intellectual compass is going to point anywhere, where would it point?"
I don't know: why does it have to point anywhere? Can you name me a thinker from Harvard more influential than Newton? A Princeton economist more influential than Marshall or Keynes? A Yale physicist who affected the world more than Oppenheimer? (naming a Princeton one should be easy, though..) A technology that affected biotech more than Cohen & Boyers? A discovery that changed medicine from quackery more than Pasteur's?
My objection was the mixing of intellectual influence with social influence. The NE universities are great engines of research, yes. But they have a disproportionate social influence in government, the same way PPE graduates from Oxford (and especially from Balliol) have in UK society.
The only reason that graduates from the comparable West Coast institutions don't get more pissed off is because they're too busy running the Software, Internet, Biotech, and Entertainment industries.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan | Aug 3, 2007 2:12:55 PM
"A Yale physicist who affected the world more than Oppenheimer?"
My bad here: I remembered that Oppenheimer studied at Harvard, although he was a UCB professor.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan | Aug 3, 2007 2:15:01 PM
Hey, this reminds me of that "Tea Partay" video you linked to Ezra:
"People try to clown the Ivy League education, but they're just jealous 'cause our parents run the nation!"
The only reason that graduates from the comparable West Coast institutions don't get more pissed off is because they're too busy running the Software, Internet, Biotech, and Entertainment industries.
One should also note that in the sciences, the cross-polination between the faculties and the graduate schools on the east coast and the west coast is substantial. Plenty of MIT/Harvard/Yale graduate students become UC Berkeley and Stanford professors and vice versa. Stanford Law, however, doesn't carry the same cachet that Yale Law does, if you have a desire to join BigFirm or become a federal judge (or a professor giving his legal opinions on TV).
Posted by: Tyro | Aug 3, 2007 2:19:28 PM
Again, I read some of these posts above, and there is clearly among the general population of Americans, if you represent it here, a disconnect about how power works. THe only relevant portion of the population are those who have political power.
Posted by: akaison | Aug 3, 2007 2:59:05 PM
By the way- if I 'm not being clear- scientists, etc- do not have political power.
Posted by: akaison | Aug 3, 2007 2:59:41 PM
Isn't the issue contacts? You can get a good education any number of places, but you don't meet the future movers and shakers in such concentrated numbers. So if Edwards doesn't have a chance, are we saying that because he's closer to a man of the people, and hasn't made those all important early contacts with the very rich with very old money and the stellar students on a one way trajectory toward impressing the world means that you can't actually get the chance to represent the people. It smacks of oligarchy and not democracy.
Posted by: Paula | Aug 3, 2007 3:37:49 PM
I think the problem lies more in Mr. Elizabeth Edwards strange campaign moves rather than his hair-and-makeup excesses. Or the lack of an Ivy League degree. This guy simply lacks gravitas, or even dime-store ethics. He blasts Hillary for taking $20K from Murdoch & overlooks his $800K book deal with HarperCollins? He works for a sub-prime mortgage hedge fund to "study poverty" and pockets half a million?
These little foibles are beginning to catch up with this inch-deep populist with a 28K sq ft estate. Looks like the shallow ambulance-chasing pretty boy is starting to hemorrhage pretty badly in the polls. Even Iowa, where he's lived for the past year, and his natal state of South Carolina, now look like they're going for Chillary or B. Hussein Obama.
Posted by: daveinboca | Aug 3, 2007 3:59:49 PM
It smacks of oligarchy and not democracy.
Sort of. Edwards, "man of the people," did well for himself, was successful, and then sent his daughter to princeton and harvard law. Plenty of families whose parents went to Harvard have slacker children, and they end up at Sarah Lawrence.
To a degree, there's a reason why these schools have reputations as being "the best in the world." There's also a reason why, statistically, all things being equal, students with equal qualifications and performance who graduate one school make as much money as students who graduate less elite schools -- they end up similarly successful and ambitious in different "classes" of careers (plaintiff's lawyer vs. corporate lawyer, doctor vs. I-banker, etc). That does, of course, influence our "political dialog", particularly in terms of policy issues when it comes to the class background of these various wealthy interest groups.
By the way- if I 'm not being clear- scientists, etc- do not have political power.
The article itself, however, was the one that brought up the issue of the "intellectual compasses" of the candidates.
Posted by: Tyro | Aug 3, 2007 4:06:34 PM
