Looking at classically liberal minds that can change, and “elite” minds that can’t

Karl Marx

Yesterday, Adam Carolla’s YouTube video about the human capacity to change inspired me to write a post about the metamorphosis I’ve seen in myself over the course of my lifetime.  What made the difference, of course, was living life, rather than just being (as all children are) a passive recipient of lessons from schools, family, and friends.

It turns out that Robert Avrech responded to Adam’s video in much the same way, writing a post about the changes he’s gone through, and how his life experiences made him question the knee-jerk Democrat leaning that was the mother’s milk of all American Jews.  (It wasn’t exactly the same way, of course, because Robert’s life has been different from mine and because Robert’s a much better writer than I am.  But still….  I flatter myself that great minds — or, in my case, pretty darn good minds — think alike.)

In his post, Robert includes a marvelous paragraph about those self-styled intellectual “elites” who don’t change, and who are locked forever in an immature ideological stasis (emphasis mine):

Yes, we eager students studied history, literature and art. But soon enough it became clear to me that a massive amount of time was spent on Marxist theory, a material view of the world. Still observant, still wearing a yarmulke, I would ask about religion, about the spirit. With deep condescension, my professors informed me that we live in a post-religious world. Religion, I was lectured, was the opiate of the people.

I wondered, but never had the courage to suggest, that perhaps Marxism was the opiate of the elites.

Hat tip:  Wolf Howling

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. MacG says

    I wondered, but never had the courage to suggest, that perhaps Marxism was the opiate of the elites.”  Love that!
    I believe in change but I have little trust of people who change without being able to explain what caused them to change.”
    Freddie,  I have  a friend that loves to use the term ‘critical thinker’.  Obama is a critical thinker, Bush is a dry drunk.  He prefers this to those who hold fast to their ideals because to do so shows a closed mind and the lack of the process of thinking.  E.g. when I point out Obama’s ‘I will not run for President if elected to the Senate’ but did so within 150 days of being elected, he sees that as being a critical thinker rather than being a flip flop or a campaign chameleon.  Never mind that a man’s word should stand for something.  He would flip out if his insurance agent told him that certain things were covered but later critically thought about and excluded some of those things but kept charging him the same rate.  
    Now I will be framing my questions to him as what do you suppose was the basis for his change?  We’ll see if he can critically think his way out of that :)

Leave a Reply