WP: George Will "Condescensional Wisdom"

[Guest Gichin13]

My god, what a skewering. Will really is a smart guy.

John Kenneth Galbraith, the Harvard economist who died last week in his 98th year, has been justly celebrated for his wit, fluency, public-spiritedness and public service, which extended from New Deal Washington to India, where he served as U.S. ambassador. Like two Harvard colleagues -- historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Sen. Pat Moynihan, another ambassador to India -- Galbraith was among liberalism's leading public intellectuals, yet he was a friend and skiing partner of William F. Buckley. After one slalom down a Swiss mountain, inelegantly executed by the 6-foot-8-inch Galbraith, Buckley asked how long Galbraith had been skiing. Thirty years, Galbraith said. Buckley mischievously replied: About as long as you have been an economist.

Galbraith was an adviser to presidents (John Kennedy, a former student, and Lyndon Johnson) and presidential aspirants (Adlai Stevenson and Eugene McCarthy). His book "The Affluent Society," published in 1958, was a milestone in liberalism's transformation into a doctrine of condescension. And into a minority persuasion.

In the 1950s liberals were disconsolate. Voters twice rejected the intelligentsia's pinup, Stevenson, in favor of Dwight Eisenhower, who elicited a new strain in liberalism -- disdain for average Americans. Liberals dismissed the Eisenhower administration as "the bland leading the bland." They said New Dealers had been supplanted by car dealers. How to explain the electorate's dereliction of taste? Easy. The masses, in their bovine simplicity, had been manipulated, mostly by advertising, particularly on television, which by 1958 had become the masses' entertainment.

Intellectuals, that herd of independent minds, were, as usual, in lock step as they deplored "conformity." Fear of that had begun when the decade did, with David Riesman's "The Lonely Crowd" (1950), which was followed by C. Wright Mills's "White Collar" (1951), Sloan Wilson's novel "The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit" (1955), William Whyte's "The Organization Man" (1956) and Vance Packard's "The Hidden Persuaders" (1957).

Galbraith brought to the anti-conformity chorus a special verve in depicting Americans as pathetic, passive lumps, as manipulable as clay. Americans were what modern liberalism relishes -- victims , to be treated as wards of a government run by liberals. It never seemed to occur to Galbraith and like-minded liberals that ordinary Americans might resent that depiction and might express their resentment with their votes.

Advertising, Galbraith argued, was a leading cause of America's "private affluence and public squalor." By that he meant Americans' consumerism, which produced their deplorable reluctance to surrender more of their income to taxation, trusting government to spend it wisely.

If advertising were as potent as Galbraith thought, the advent of television -- a large dose of advertising, delivered to every living room -- should have caused a sharp increase in consumption relative to savings. No such increase coincided with the arrival of television, but Galbraith, reluctant to allow empiricism to slow the flow of theory, was never a martyr to Moynihan's axiom that everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts.

Although Galbraith coined the phrase "conventional wisdom" and thought of himself as the scourge of groupthink, "The Affluent Society" was the distilled essence of the conventional wisdom on campuses. In the 1960s that liberalism became a stance of disdain, describing Americans not only as Galbraith had, as vulgar, but also as sick, racist, sexist, imperialist, etc. Again, and not amazingly, voters were not amused when told that their desires -- for big cars, neighborhood schools and other things -- did not deserve respect.

But for liberals that was precisely the beauty of Galbraith's theory. If advertising could manufacture demand for whatever corporations wanted to supply, there was no need to respect markets, which bring supply and demand into equilibrium.

"The Affluent Society" was the canonical text of modern liberalism's disparagement of the competence of the average American. This liberalism -- the belief that people are manipulable dolts who need to be protected by their liberal betters from exposure to "too much" advertising -- is one rationale for McCain-Feingold. That law regulating campaigns embodies the political class's belief that it knows just the right amount of permissible political speech.

Of course if advertising really could manufacture consumer wants willy-nilly, few new products would fail. But many do. "The Affluent Society," postulating the awesome power of manufacturers to manufacture whatever demand they find it convenient to satisfy, was published nine months after Ford Motor Co. put all of its marketing muscle behind a new product, the Edsel.

Small wonder that a conservative wit has surmised that the wisdom of economists varies inversely with their heights. Milton Friedman, 93, is 5 feet tall.

[GrimReefa]

Will is an idiot. And if he doesn't think that advertising drives the market, I'd love to hear him explain why Budweiser is the "King of Beers". It damn sure doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the product.

Also, why the popularity of the SUV? It's ugly, hard to park, uncomfortable to ride in, guzzles down gas, and rolls over at the drop of a hat. And yet, everyone has one.

New products fail because their advertising isn't good. Obviously ol' George doesn't watch much TV, or he would see how poorly most products are pushed. It's the ones that have clever ad campaigns - like Budweiser and Hummer - that succeed.

[Midnight Judges]

I don't agree with George Will especially since this piece was written to denounce a man immediately after his death. That ain't right.

I certainly do not agree with Will's characterization of what Galbraith's beliefs were, but I do not trust Will to interpret the beliefs of a man that he clearly does not understand.

I don't relate to defeatist attitudes and I don't believe Americans are on average, dumb. However, you know what they say, an individual is smart, but a thousand individuals in a mob is dumb as a brick...er, something like that. Point is, mainstream America CAN be manipulated. Example: we elected a feakin' oil man to be President! :doh:

Also, there is a new Washington Post study that shows up to 8% of the people who watch FOX news have let it change their vote in favor of the Republicans. Trusting FOX news is like trusting a Politician.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/03/AR2006050302299.html

Joe McCarthy is the epitome of manipulation in America and that was going on right before Galbraith wrote his piece. Conveniently, Will leaves out this all-important context. McCarthy was manipulating Americans based on emotion and it had nothing to do with facts. McCarthy never uncovered or exposed a single communist but through his emotionally charged rhetoric laced with fear, he was able to trick 40% of Americans into thinking he was the #1 leader in the fight against subversive communists, and almost 30% still believed this well after he was proven to be a flake, and still around 15% to this day approve of his failed tactics.

American individuals are smart, but as a mob we can be hard-headed. This point is lost on Will.

[chomerics]

Looks like Will is back up to his old tricks, wait until a man dies to rip him.

If advertising doesn;t control the public perception in his eyes, then how does he explain an entire political climate based on it. If he is such a believer in the free market, then surely he can see the transference of marketing across fields, and how politics use the best way to influence people ie. marketing, to get elected.

Nope, that is lost on him, why am I not surprised. . .

[Guest Gichin13]

I do not subscribe to agreeing with Will all the time. I do not think he waited to rip Galbraith in death, I feel like I have read him directly ripping Galbraith before. I also think that people can act like sheep and be relatively manipulated ... but I also think that happens on both sides of the political fence.

I do agree with Will that the left has done much to erode its position of influence with some rhetorical smearing of how much smarter they are than others and how dumb the folks voting for Bush must be. That seems like a weak sales pitch to win voters back in my book, and I think that is the basic prime underlying theme of a lot of Will's view (and also this article).

[Duncan]

"Americans were what modern liberalism relishes -- victims , to be treated as wards of a government run by liberals."

Pretty harsh, although certainly accurate, commentary on the current liberal mindset. Just look at the comments from liberals in this thread. People are duped by advertising jingles into buying terrible beer and driving ugly, uncomfortable, gas guzzling monstrosities. The solution, of course, is to have enlightened liberals tell us all how to live.

Care to take a poll of left wingers who still believe those forged memos were real or that 911 was a Bush plot to line his oil buddies pockets? The result would be much higher than 8%.

Fox news is certainly slanted but no more than ABC, CNBC, CBS and CNN. I wonder how many voters are influenced by these news sources, but you will never see such a poll by the WP.

[Ancalagon the Black]

I'd certainly acknowledge that Galbraith could be very condescending, and that condescension does show through in his written work. However, I believe that this particular Will piece contains several bits of equivocation that, had Galbraith been alive to witness them, would have been instantly skewered with the most mordant of wits.

Two examples. First, should the potency of advertising have increased consumption relative to savings? The Affluent Society explicitly deals with this question, and answers it in the negative. Part of the point is that as falling prices and increasing abundance resulted in the average consumer having everything he or she needed (which would have put downward pressure on consumption), firms had to manufacture demand. This balanced the downward pressure on consumption and thus resulted in no net change in consumption and saving rates.

Second, to claim that Galbraith’s hypothesis is that “advertisers could manufacture consumer wants willy-nilly” is very misleading. Edsel was a spectacular failure because it was highly marketed and yet still failed – this is interesting to us because it is unusual. Usually heavily marketed products do better than similar products that are not as heavily marketed. Will is obstinately refusing to recognize this fact in order to make his bombastic point.

Just to throw in a bit of ad hominem: I often respect Will’s opinion, but for him to accuse other people of condescension is, at best, amusing.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Case in point for Will of liberalisms condesention

This board, right after the 2004 election

The how can so many people be so stupid posts

Liberals in America have become an incredibly arrogant group for the reason that many are academics that live in a bubble world of the University and somehow avoid what we like to call "reality"

Now mind you, I know there is a difference between Democrats and liberals. I am not that dumb :laugh:

This piece to do with advertising makes a point that no we as Americans are not mindless lemmings, and when you call us that is pisses us off. Apparently Galbriath and his ilk did just that in the 1950s

[Duncan]

Two examples. First, should the potency of advertising have increased consumption relative to savings? The Affluent Society explicitly deals with this question, and answers it in the negative. Part of the point is that as falling prices and increasing abundance resulted in the average consumer having everything he or she needed (which would have put downward pressure on consumption), firms had to manufacture demand. This balanced the downward pressure on consumption and thus resulted in no net change in consumption and saving rates.

The problem with this argument is the definition of need. Falling prices lead to more disposable income broadening the definition. Does anyone really need a microwave, air conditioning or two cars? It probably depends on who you ask.

I would argue it was increased affluence, not advertising, that offset the lack of demand.

Second, to claim that Galbraith’s hypothesis is that “advertisers could manufacture consumer wants willy-nilly” is very misleading. Edsel was a spectacular failure because it was highly marketed and yet still failed – this is interesting to us because it is unusual. Usually heavily marketed products do better than similar products that are not as heavily marketed. Will is obstinately refusing to recognize this fact in order to make his bombastic point.

No amount of advertising would have saved the Edsel because it was a terrible product. The argument that advertising regardless of product quality increases demand is definitely condescending.

I doubt Will would attempt to argue that, given two similar products, the one highly marketed would not fair better. That is hardly an economic revelation. He is scoffing at the notion that demand is a function of advertising spending and that is hardly being obstinate.

[Ancalagon the Black]

I would argue it was increased affluence, not advertising, that offset the lack of demand.

I don't think we're saying markedly different things. I believe the increased affluence didn't result in increased spending partially because of advertising.

No amount of advertising would have saved the Edsel because it was a terrible product. The argument that advertising regardless of product quality increases demand is definitely condescending.

I doubt Will would attempt to argue that, given two similar products, the one highly marketed would not fair better. That is hardly an economic revelation. He is scoffing at the notion that demand is a function of advertising spending and that is hardly being obstinate.

Again, I think our opinions differ in degree rather than fundamentally. You admit that advertising has some influence on demand. This influence is extraneous to quality; therefore, the statement "advertising regardless of product quality increases demand" must be true. (Note that it's not the same statement as "advertising completely trumps product quality".)

Demand is a function of many factors, one of which is advertising. This must be the case; otherwise, advertising would have no influence on demand.

[gbear]

Funny thing is that all of this talk of advertising goes against what I learned in marketing. Most of the studies I remember showed that advertising doesn't change what we think about the quality of usefulness of an item so much as it changes how quickly we think of an item.

Case an point: go around your office or work and ask peopple to name 3 fast food restaraunts. The odds are good that Mcdonalds will appear in just about every list.

Now go to different people and ask them what their favorite fast food restaraunts are. Everytime I've done this, Mcdonalds ranks far lower in the second question than the first. Things like Checkers, Subway, etc start to come up.

So why advetise? They advertise because when we are hungry and need food quickly, we'll think of Mcdonalds. If only 1 in 3 pick it because it's not great, then the offset is everybody thinks about it. If you have a terrible product, 0 in 3 isn't going to help you. Also on cars, there is the added bit that cars are a product about which many consumers will do SOME research/thinking before purchasing. If only people put that much time into politics Seriously though, politics comes right back to advertising. How many people even think of third party canidates as a viable alternative? We tend to think of only the two who advertise (and I'd count news stories as advertisement). What's more, being mentioned makes us think of them as being viable. Is advertising manufacturing demand or simply shaping how a given demand manifests itself and is expressed? Does nobody think advertising can lead us to less than optimal espressions of our demand? Do that many people really prefer Mcdonalds over the other fast foods? It seems to do better and has bought out many places people have liked better like Roy Rogers and Hardy's (both still nasty in my book).

[Winslowalrob]

Hahha what a hilarious article. Wrong as hell, but funny nonetheless. And I loved the Milton comment at the end (Who I personally think wasn't all that hot as an economist, but thats another story). Maybe he woulda been a little taller if he had some more free lunches.

[Winslowalrob]

Case in point for Will of liberalisms condesention

This board, right after the 2004 election

The how can so many people be so stupid posts

Liberals in America have become an incredibly arrogant group for the reason that many are academics that live in a bubble world of the University and somehow avoid what we like to call "reality"

Now mind you, I know there is a difference between Democrats and liberals. I am not that dumb :laugh:

This piece to do with advertising makes a point that no we as Americans are not mindless lemmings, and when you call us that is pisses us off. Apparently Galbriath and his ilk did just that in the 1950s

And his ilk? Have you read the book? I wouldn't trust Mr. Will's assesment of it.

[Midnight Judges]

Fox news is certainly slanted but no more than ABC, CNBC, CBS and CNN. I wonder how many voters are influenced by these news sources, but you will never see such a poll by the WP.

If the WP was the only agency capable of making a study you might have a point. Unfortunately, there are 3000 right wing think tanks and if any of them thought they could get your desired results through a study, they would have done so. In other words, you can say it, but you can't prove it. I can say FOX news is slanted because I have two studies that prove it. You have no such proof and thus you are speaking out of your rear end.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

[Guest Gichin13]

Just to throw in a bit of ad hominem: I often respect Will’s opinion, but for him to accuse other people of condescension is, at best, amusing.

Agree entirely, and also with much of the substance.

Will is definitely quite adept at twisting other folks arguments, and his spin on the Edsel is pretty much a case in point.

Like most things, I would personally place things somewhere in the middle between advertising governing and free market being a panacea. I like it that there are actually some intelligent folks on the poles instead of people who are not intelligent and thought provoking like most folks who get more attention than the Wills and Galbraiths of the world.

[AJ_Skins]

If the WP was the only agency capable of making a study you might have a point. Unfortunately, there are 3000 right wing think tanks and if any of them thought they could get your desired results through a study, they would have done so. In other words, you can say it, but you can't prove it. I can say FOX news is slanted because I have two studies that prove it. You have no such proof and thus you are speaking out of your rear end.

Media Research Center

[AJ_Skins]

The emergence of widely available disposable income has created the demand for consumer goods. Advertising serves to promote goods to the public that may or may not be a magnet for their disposable income. The advertising does not create the demand, it is an attempt to capitalize on a demand that already exists (I have more money than I need to live off of, and I need a place to spend it).

[Predicto]

The emergence of widely available disposable income has created the demand for consumer goods. Advertising serves to promote goods to the public that may or may not be a magnet for their disposable income. The advertising does not create the demand, it is an attempt to capitalize on a demand that already exists (I have more money than I need to live off of, and I need a place to spend it).

Or not. I would argue that not only does effective advertising create a demand, because of the availabily of easy consumer credit, it is able to do so even when the purchasers actually cannot afford to purchase the item.

[portisizzle]

Or not. I would argue that not only does effective advertising create a demand, because of the availabily of easy consumer credit, it is able to do so even when the purchasers actually cannot afford to purchase the item.

How much a month? lol