The Role Of The Public Intellectual

The pre-requisite to any conversation is a foundational thesis from which to build off. The term public intellectual can mean many different things to many different people. However, professor Stephen Mack’s view on the role and duties of a public intellectual concisely articulates what will be the thesis of this post. Professor Mack wrote,

            “It is also, however, the obligation of every citizen in a democracy. Trained to it or not, all participants in self-government are duty bound to prod, poke, and pester the powerful intuitions that would shape their lives. And so if public intellectuals have any role to play in a democracy-and they do-it’s simply to keep the pot boiling. The measure of public intellectuals work is not whether the people are listening, but whether they’re hearing things worth talking about.”

            Now that the term public intellectual is defined, how does it relate to us now in America? Do we have a history of this public discourse being guided by intelligent and thoughtful citizens? And what does the current scene of public intellectuals currently consist of?

            Arguably the role of the public intellectual in the construction of our country lies somewhere between a critical and a necessary component without which, we might still be British citizens or a plethora of separate entities living on the same continent. Thomas Paine, James Madison, and others all played this critical role of public intellectual in the beginning of the great experiment, which came to be known as America. Now this role has left the hands of a few articulate men and is currently dominated by a wide range of men and women from all different backgrounds and ages. One particularly interesting person to focus on today is a fellow Millennial, named Ezra Klein.

            This 21^st century public intellectual did not plan on becoming a member of this historical association, but instead stumbled into the role with the help of the internet. Klein was born on May 9^th, 1984. He first attended University of California at Santa Cruz before deciding to transfer and complete his degree at University of California at Los Angeles. When attending UCLA, Klein recalls that his application to write for the university’s daily newspaper, the Daily Bruin, was rejected. Instead of accepting his writing career as over, he pushed forward into the new frontier, and arguably, the new medium of the public intellectual. The internet, and blogging specifically, removed the high barriers of entry to an aspiring pubic intellectual. The necessity of first achieving vast name recognition and publishing volumes of book were systematically dismantled by the introduction of the blogosphere. Anyone who was willing to tackle tough issues and stack wood under the fire of current debate topics would have a chance at ascending the ladder into the position of public intellectual.

            Although the internet does provide perhaps one of the last remaining arenas of true equality, it also does present the issue of the conversation being watered down by the sheer number of opinions that are able to weigh in on every issue. In Ezra Klein’s case his ability to thoughtfully deconstruct complex issues and present them to the public in a concise manner does provide a public good, but he is also only 30. Perhaps the celebratory trumpet has been sounded to early in his case? Is it not worth wondering that his self-constructed platform is perhaps too powerful? Furthermore, what makes him necessarily right in his writing or his actions? All are good questions worth considering, but to counter them one must also ask, are any of those aforementioned inquiries even relevant?

            Again to quote Professor Mack, “…the public intellectual function is criticism. And if intellectuals are in a better position to perform that function it’s not because they are uniquely blessed with wisdom—and it’s certainly not because they are uniquely equipped to wield social or political power. It is only because learning the process of criticism and practicing them with some regularity are requisites for intellectual employment."

In short, public intellectuals should be willing to say the things that need to be said. They, like the Supreme Court at times, function as a safety valve on society. The politics of legislating consistently dampen the ability to be forthright with the American public. This inhibits most politicians’ ability to be viewed as non-political observers even as hard as they try. The public intellectual fills this void of trust by voicing criticism on policy that is not being drafted, and also policy that was written with allegedly invidious intentions. However, to truly maintain the title of public intellectual, he or she at times has to rise above their ideological perspective and view the issues from an objective standpoint. At face value this talent could be construed as a necessity to an all-encompassing democratic conversation. However, one might argue that this objective perspective might do greater harm in the long run for the conversation and country as a whole.

            An example of Ezra Klein attempting to perform the balancing act of being a progressive supporter of liberal policy and remaining true to his objective views as a public intellectual were highlighted in the recent rollout of the Affordable Healthcare Act. As most know, the initial implementation of the healthcare act was rocky to say the least. Most of the problems were the result of the online market systems being unable to process even small numbers of customers, and also the website as a whole was slow, unresponsive, and unreliable. There is a large amount of anecdotal evidence of citizens attempting to purchase new affordable healthcare; the very system which was advertised as their medical salvation could in fact not perform even the basic tasks of a website. Klein observed all of this from his blogging platform and spoke out on it. Bear in mind that his liberal ideology is no secret, so his comments tested the limits of where progressive supporter ends and political intellectual begins. Klein wrote,

             "In the months before the launch almost every senior member of the Obama administration had a little calendar board tacked up in a prominent spot in their office. "75 days until Obamacare" it would say. The next morning they would tear off the page. "74 days until Obamacare" it would say. The message -- to them and to their visitors -- was clear: This was the White House's top priority.

We're now negative 14 days until the Affordable Care Act and most people still can't purchase insurance. The magnitude of this failure is stunning. Yes, the federal health-care law is a complicated project, government it rules are a mess, and the scrutiny has been overwhelming. But the Obama administration knew all that going in. They should've been able to build an online portal that works."

            All to clearly Klein had voiced his objections too the roll out thus far. But in the long run, would not showing restraint in his scathing criticism be in the best interest of his chosen political leanings? Could he have merely commented that the rollout was not going as planned, and that was to be expected when introducing a new large and complex federal program? Had this been the chosen route, he would have addressed the problems, but would not have kept the “pot boiling” so to speak.  If he did show deference to the “bigger picture” would he then be rejecting his responsibility as a public intellectual whose job is to criticize? Or is the bigger picture the continuation of a tradition that allows public intellectuals to criticize non-discriminately for the greater good?

            Joan Walsh, a fellow liberal and respected blogger, identified these conflicting interests displayed by Klein and commented on them herself. She wrote,

            "Don’t get me wrong: The problems with Healthcare.gov are real, and disturbing, and must be fixed asap. (Think Progress has a dispassionate assessment here.) But excuse me if I believe the president knows that without my telling him. It’s like watching the 21st century version of the rise of the Democratic Leadership Council, and I feel the way I did back then: On the one hand, yes, it’s important for Democrats to acknowledge when government screws up, and to fix it.

On the other hand, when liberals rush conscientiously to do that, they only encourage the completely unbalanced and unhinged coverage of whatever the problem may be."

Walsh’s view here seems to suggest that when an individual is in a position to voice public concern, that he or she might resist the temptation to in recognition that their actions could cause more harm than good from a political perspective.

However, pursuant to the accepted definition of a public intellectual, any actions less than criticism, as displayed by Klein, would be in direct contrast to his higher responsibilities. Loyalty to an ideology must be submissive to the loyalty of honest public debate when fulfilling the role of a public intellectual.

            This example is illustrative of the public service an intellectual can bring to society. Klein’s decision to focus on the flaws of the healthcare roll out does not hurt the law. In fact, his criticism only helps ensure the success of this legislation because his writing will bring about a focused correction-driven response. If Klein had not kept putting gasoline on the fire perhaps less attention would have been paid to the problem. Due to his chosen liberal ideology his criticism can be viewed as an honest, non-partisan, critique of the roll out.

            Public intellectuals will continue to play a positive role in society. Their service is an essential component of a self-governing democratic country. An article by David Palumbo-liu, titled, The Public Intellectual as Provocateur, highlighted an interesting benefit of the internet that promotes the discussions between vast amounts of people. David wrote,

            "The internet links people and their ideas in unprecedented ways. The question as the critic Howard Rheingold put it, is not only how we use this capacity smartly, but also why we should: If we combine our individual efforts wisely, enough of the right know-how could add up to a more thoughtful society as well as enhance those individuals who master digital network skills. Web 2.0 impresario Tim O’Reilly claims that the secret sauce behind Google, Wikipedia, and the Web itself is the “architecture of participation”, enabling countless small acts of self-interest like publishing a web page or sharing a link to add up to a public good that enriches everybody."

            As this passage illustrates, the public intellectual is not a role commanded by only a few men. It is now a societal responsibility and the internet provides each and every person to thoughtfully weigh in on the current issues. This new acceptance of diverse opinion, thoughts, and analysis does not necessarily lessen the importance of the public intellectual, but instead it spreads the weight of responsibility around. Each person is entitled to the megaphone of the internet to use however he or she likes. While in many instances people will simply keep their headphones plugged in and ignore the periphery noises, occasionally an individual, with a thoughtful message, will break through. Ezra Klein is an example of one of these outliers making their way in. The public intellectual is anybody and also nobody. It is everyone and also just someone. Journalists and academics no longer monopolize the medium that historically broadcasted the public conversation. It is open to any and all who want to use it. This is only beneficial to the greater good of society, and I for one am proud of a fellow millennial grabbing his megaphone, throwing gas on the fire, and keeping the debate moving forward.