On arrogance.
I'm beginning to understand what people see when they bother to look outside of themselves.
I'm starting to understand the parallel between conservatism and loyalty. I'm also beginning to form the connection between those that admire intelligence versus those that admire material gains.
I'd been having an internal conversation about why. Why is it some folks (I will not reach so far as to assume that my wisdom reaches the broadest spectrum of mankind) absolutely admire those that display an intellectual arrogance and strive to be near that person. Meanwhile they abhor and even deride those with the arrogance that typically accompanies the acquisition of vast wealth.
Let me be less opaque.
I know that there are people that hated 44 because of his sometimes intellectual arrogance. He's clearly a very smart dude, no one with any degree of self-awareness who is willing to be completely honest with themselves could deny that the man was frequently the smartest person in the room. This, I think, rubbed people the wrong way because, in their minds, his arrogance was rooted in the thought that he was better than them.
See, there was never any way, at least for those that railed against him for 8 years, to reliably quantify his intelligence as compared to their own. Sure, the man is book-smart and can talk policy, but why is that intelligence better than the intelligence of knowing what to do after you've downed a buck so its meat doesn't go bad? Why is someone who went to Harvard smarter than someone who's father taught them to repoint stone steps so perfectly that they looked brand new once they were done? There's no way to quantify it because the goals are different.
There was no way that 44's goals would line up with those of someone who hated him. The more "arrogant" he appeared, the more vile he seemed. He looked like he thought he was better than them, and they disagreed with that idea.
Meanwhile, folks who admired 44 love that intellectuality (I swear that's a real word). Those folks, if they were truly honest with themselves, would agree about the arrogance but would argue that it was hard earned. It is something that they themselves strive for, a degree of confidence that would allow them to tackle whatever issue came their way with grace and some semblance of style.
Those that hate 44 hate that he's proud to have achieved something that they're not sure is worthwhile which, in their minds, will lead him to achieve something that they deeply admire. Material wealth.
So, when it comes to 45, the ones that truly and deeply admire him admire someone who seems to have achieved great wealth and status, quantifiable measures in their eyes. His arrogance is hard earned because he has the numbers to back it up. He has access to wealth that they strive for.
I'll take this moment to say that I'm not trying to look down on anyone. I'm not smart enough to really judge anyone for their choices, I'm merely stating something that I've observed, some thoughts that I've been processing when it comes to my own feelings for 44 and 45.
It seems to me that many of the admirers of 45 love the arrogance of "I have more than you, so you should respect me." There's something seductive about seeing someone who has what you hope to achieve one day. Of course this person is smart because they have such wealth. Of course this person is better than me, there are quantifiable numbers that prove it. He has access to more wealth than the average person, so why not strive for that?
This is one of the reasons the haters of 45 hate him so much. That's the arrogance they despise. The arrogance of the abundance of material possessions. For them, it's gaudy. It's the very reason for the ills of the world, personal greed at the expense of everyone else.
To the haters of 45, he represents an intellectual bankruptcy. He's devoid of character merely because his arrogance and confidence springs from the apparent acquisition of wealth. There is no depth of personality, no interests beyond the additional gain of self-worth.
They miss the intellectual arrogance of 44 and wish 45 would just get bent.
The lovers of 45 love that he seems to have achieved something they want and think that 44 was just a know-it-all blowhard.
So, where do we all find common ground? In the admiration of arrogance and the acknowledgement that everyone wants something different. We all have traits that we want in our leaders. The trick becomes learning to communicate those preferences in ways that don't betray our own arrogances.
I'm starting to understand the parallel between conservatism and loyalty. I'm also beginning to form the connection between those that admire intelligence versus those that admire material gains.
I'd been having an internal conversation about why. Why is it some folks (I will not reach so far as to assume that my wisdom reaches the broadest spectrum of mankind) absolutely admire those that display an intellectual arrogance and strive to be near that person. Meanwhile they abhor and even deride those with the arrogance that typically accompanies the acquisition of vast wealth.
Let me be less opaque.
I know that there are people that hated 44 because of his sometimes intellectual arrogance. He's clearly a very smart dude, no one with any degree of self-awareness who is willing to be completely honest with themselves could deny that the man was frequently the smartest person in the room. This, I think, rubbed people the wrong way because, in their minds, his arrogance was rooted in the thought that he was better than them.
See, there was never any way, at least for those that railed against him for 8 years, to reliably quantify his intelligence as compared to their own. Sure, the man is book-smart and can talk policy, but why is that intelligence better than the intelligence of knowing what to do after you've downed a buck so its meat doesn't go bad? Why is someone who went to Harvard smarter than someone who's father taught them to repoint stone steps so perfectly that they looked brand new once they were done? There's no way to quantify it because the goals are different.
There was no way that 44's goals would line up with those of someone who hated him. The more "arrogant" he appeared, the more vile he seemed. He looked like he thought he was better than them, and they disagreed with that idea.
Meanwhile, folks who admired 44 love that intellectuality (I swear that's a real word). Those folks, if they were truly honest with themselves, would agree about the arrogance but would argue that it was hard earned. It is something that they themselves strive for, a degree of confidence that would allow them to tackle whatever issue came their way with grace and some semblance of style.
Those that hate 44 hate that he's proud to have achieved something that they're not sure is worthwhile which, in their minds, will lead him to achieve something that they deeply admire. Material wealth.
So, when it comes to 45, the ones that truly and deeply admire him admire someone who seems to have achieved great wealth and status, quantifiable measures in their eyes. His arrogance is hard earned because he has the numbers to back it up. He has access to wealth that they strive for.
I'll take this moment to say that I'm not trying to look down on anyone. I'm not smart enough to really judge anyone for their choices, I'm merely stating something that I've observed, some thoughts that I've been processing when it comes to my own feelings for 44 and 45.
It seems to me that many of the admirers of 45 love the arrogance of "I have more than you, so you should respect me." There's something seductive about seeing someone who has what you hope to achieve one day. Of course this person is smart because they have such wealth. Of course this person is better than me, there are quantifiable numbers that prove it. He has access to more wealth than the average person, so why not strive for that?
This is one of the reasons the haters of 45 hate him so much. That's the arrogance they despise. The arrogance of the abundance of material possessions. For them, it's gaudy. It's the very reason for the ills of the world, personal greed at the expense of everyone else.
To the haters of 45, he represents an intellectual bankruptcy. He's devoid of character merely because his arrogance and confidence springs from the apparent acquisition of wealth. There is no depth of personality, no interests beyond the additional gain of self-worth.
They miss the intellectual arrogance of 44 and wish 45 would just get bent.
The lovers of 45 love that he seems to have achieved something they want and think that 44 was just a know-it-all blowhard.
So, where do we all find common ground? In the admiration of arrogance and the acknowledgement that everyone wants something different. We all have traits that we want in our leaders. The trick becomes learning to communicate those preferences in ways that don't betray our own arrogances.