Jindal, like his fellow GOP governors along the Gulf Coast the past few years, handle hurricanes well because they act proactively, not because of an Ivy League education or time spent in a bureaucracy.

Our semi-paralyzed bureaucracy is filled with the latter qualifications.

BTW, Jindal's actions during Gustav are basically putting the lie to the slander that the federal government rather than the state and local governments somehow let LA down during Katrina. A competent state government evacuates its people and sends in the national guard proactively rather than dithering for days and getting people killed. The Feds limited by posse comitatus cannot perform this function.
 

Jindal, like his fellow GOP governors along the Gulf Coast the past few years, handle hurricanes well because they act proactively,...

You mean like this?

In "Bart"'s mind, Democrats are constitutionally (but not in the legal sense) incapable of acting "proactively", whereas such courses through the blood of Republicans as a matter of breeding.

What a load of horsepuckey.

I'd note FWIW that had Gustav tracked a little bit farther north and packed the same winds as Katrina, the levees would have over-topped again because they still haven't been fixed even after we saw what happened with Katrina. Three years later, there's "proactive" for you. And then there's the 9/11 Commission recommendations, which have langoured on and been ignored the the Dubya maladministration. That's the proof that "Bart"'s theory about Republican 'competence' is all a lie.

Cheers,
 

Hah, Bart's never heard of the exclamation, "Where the hell is the cavalry on this one?"

Cue furious websearching.
 

BTW, Jindal's actions during Gustav are basically putting the lie to the slander that the federal government rather than the state and local governments somehow let LA down during Katrina.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle meets post hoc ergo propter hoc. Or do you think that the failures of government (on ALL levels, from Nagin to Blanco to Bush) didn't inform government officials (on ALL levels, from Nagin to Jindal to Bush) that they needed to get their ducks in a row this time?
 

I, for one, got the tongue-in-cheek tone of Prof. Griffin's post. For those who too blithely deploy a cavalier "because," do see Wesley Salmon's Causality & Explanation.
 

What do you think Jindal learned in his education that prepared him to deal with the hurricane? Was it his class on Classic literature? Was it his class on advanced French? And why would these classes have been superior to what someone with a college degree from say, Eureka College or the U. of Idaho would have learned?

The real value of an degree from Brown or Oxford is networking and resume building. Both the line on your resume and the networking get you interviews (from alumni) that you would not otherwise get. The actual education is not particularly relevant to anything, and may or may not be superior to less-known institutions. The former point is self-evident from what is actually taught at a college or university. The latter point is why liberal arts schools like Williams (no I didn't go there) consistently outperform the Ivies when evaluating quality of education. There is a difference between the value of the credential and the value of the education.

The lesson Jindal learned was not anything he was taught at Brown or Oxford, but what he saw watching the LA governor and NO mayor fumble during Katrina. It was this: that sitting around will get you blamed for anything that happens (even if it would have happened anyway), but proactively doing everything you can will get you credit for good faith and may even save lives. And that no one is going to blame you for over-preparing.

Some basic data points for you to consider:

Of successful post-war presidents, Reagan went to Eureka. Clinton went to Georgetown and Yale. Eisenhower went to West Point. Truman had no college degree.

Of mediocre post-war presidents, Bush Sr. went to Yale. Ford went to Michigan and Yale Law. LBJ went to SW Texas State Teachers College. JFK went to Harvard.

Of failures, Bush Jr. went to Yale and Harvard. Carter went to the Naval Academy and GA Southwestern. Nixon went to Whittier and Duke.

None of these folks ever taught a class, except perhaps for Ike while he was president of Columbia. Yale and Harvard show up 5 times, but that is because of the networking.

I don't see any correlation between quality of performance and either the presence of a graduate degree or the ranking of the institutions in question.

Maybe you want to rework your hypothesis?
 

I'm generally sympathetic to Zachary's point. I think emphasis on the Ivy League schools is VASTLY overdone; I'd like to see a President adopt an appointments policy which affirmatively encourages graduates from the state schools (Berkeley, Michigan, etc.). Let's expand the sphere a bit.

That said, I'm not sure it makes sense to count Bush II as an Ivy graduate. He was pretty clearly an affirmative action admit. All his record really shows is that sow's ears make lousy silk purses.
 

I thought this post was silly. Basically your argument is, yeah, Jindal did do a ton of stuff before he even got into the House, like run the state Medicaid program, the state universities, be the #2 guy in a Cabinet department, but if you throw all that out, all he did was be a member of Congress and go to great schools, "just like" Obama. And look, he's doing a good job, so why wouldn't Obama? Obama may or may not make a great President, but Jindal isn't evidence for that. Let's be honest - people like you and Sandy wouldn't care if everything on his resume but his presidency of the Harvard Law Review had never happened.
 

Mark:

It's certainly correct that you can take credentialism too far and that expanding the sphere is a good idea. Heck, I would say that a Sarah Palin might very well be the type of person that McCain would want to bring into his administration and who might be a great person to have in the right role-- she just isn't qualified to be President.

But credentials tell us more than you give them credit for. Contra Zachary's point, you really do learn a lot about life and how the great thinkers approached great problems by reading the classics. (Indeed, conservatives don't deny this point when it is made about the Bible and the works of religious thinkers!) And people who go to these schools are also surrounded by, and have to compete with, other brilliant people and great thinkers. They are taught by some of the best professors, some of the most brilliant people in their respective fields.

It doesn't mean that a person with the credential can't screw it up or that someone else may have the real-world experience to be a better choice, but really, the credential does tell us more than you (or the conservative Palin-boosters and Obama-bashers) give it credit for.
 

Wow, reading this blog is sort of like reading Jonathan Edwards. According to the author, every single thing in the world points to the greatness of Obama/Jesus. Bird songs in the morning? They sing for Jesus. Successful evacuation of Louisiana? Proves what a great president Obama will be. QED.
 

But credentials tell us more than you give them credit for.

I'm not the biggest fan of credentials in the narrow sense of "what college did you attend". I think stuff like that is of marginal relevance, though of some value (kind of like my attitude towards standardized tests). But that wasn't what I was really getting at.

I should have been a little more precise on what it was about Zachary's post I agreed with. He's wrong about the Classics, though I would hardly limit a good education to them. I also agree with you that Palin's background demonstrates a narrow-mindedness that's antithetical to a well-educated person.

My point was a more limited one: to the extent credentials are important, we should expand our outlook beyond the Ivies and include many of the top public universities and small colleges as well. We don't have to include every single JC, we just need to be more inclusive than some people seem to be now.

Exactly where to draw the line is, of course, arbitrary. I just think that it's foolish to give the preference some people seem to give to the Ivies, when plenty of very smart people graduate from, say, Michigan.
 

Tray:

Let's be honest - people like you and Sandy wouldn't care if everything on his resume but his presidency of the Harvard Law Review had never happened.

Yes, let's be honest: Where have Profs. Griffin and Levinson ever said -- or even hinted -- such a thing?

Out with it: We do appreciate honest discussion.

Cheers,
 

Arne, this is pretty easy. Sandy's knocked down all sorts of Republicans (Jindal, Thune, Palin) as unqualified for the #2 spot on the ticket when they've spent just as much time in government - in some cases more - as Obama - and done more in government than Obama, who's mostly been occupied in his campaign. So I think there are two ways to interpret this. One is that Republicans are just less qualified for office by virtue of their wrongheaded views. I don't think that's a very charitable interpretation. The other is that Obama's more qualified because he was on law review at Harvard and taught constitutional law - that is, he's really bright. That at least makes a little sense. Now look, I don't think it's absolutely implausible to argue that anyone that smart is ready to be President so long as he's halfway conversant with the issues. Bush could've spent 40 years in the Senate and he still would've made a poorer President than Obama would have 12 years ago. Natural ability matters. But that is the argument implicitly being made, and I think the post we're commenting on is outrageously disingenuous. Jindal ran half of the state bureaucracy and a Cabinet department, and Griffin says, "well let's just bracket that or say it's canceled out by Obama's community organizer work and pretend that, like Obama, all he did was win some academic awards and sit in Congress for a couple years - see, with that kind of thin resume successful governance is possible after all!"
 

Tray:

Arne, this is pretty easy. Sandy's knocked down all sorts of Republicans (Jindal, Thune, Palin) as unqualified for the #2 spot on the ticket when they've spent just as much time in government - in some cases more - as Obama - and done more in government than Obama, who's mostly been occupied in his campaign.

Cite?

But I'd point out that such hardly proves the truth of your assertion.

... So I think there are two ways to interpret this. One is that Republicans are just less qualified for office by virtue of their wrongheaded views....

So you'll put your ... ummm, "interpretation" ... on what Prof. Levinson says?!?!? Why not let his words say what he says and skip the "interpretation" and psychobabble. We're quite capable of reading, and don't need your assistance.

... I don't think that's a very charitable interpretation. The other is that Obama's more qualified because he was on law review at Harvard and taught constitutional law - that is, he's really bright....

Clue fer ya: The two are not the same. But the same objection I raised to your last paragraph applies here as well.

... That at least makes a little sense....

To you, perhaps. That's your cross to bear. You will harldy convince me, Prof. Levinson, or any of the others here of this, though, particularly through the rhetorical technique of bald assertion. You might consider why this approach fails.

... Now look, I don't think it's absolutely implausible to argue that anyone that smart is ready to be President so long as he's halfway conversant with the issues. Bush could've spent 40 years in the Senate and he still would've made a poorer President than Obama would have 12 years ago. Natural ability matters. But that is the argument implicitly being made, and I think the post we're commenting on is outrageously disingenuous. Jindal ran half of the state bureaucracy and a Cabinet department, and Griffin says, "well let's just bracket that or say it's canceled out by Obama's community organizer work and pretend that, like Obama, all he did was win some academic awards and sit in Congress for a couple years - see, with that kind of thin resume successful governance is possible after all!"

You might consider the comment by Mr. Rowan above to the effect that Prof. Griffin may have laced his commentary with a little snark. And then pull your panties out of that wad.

But your comments WRT the supposed views of Prof. Levinson and Griffin certainly seem to have been seriously made, and they are ... well, shall we say, quite unsupported? Perhaps an apology to the perfessers is in order.

Cheers,