A Nation Of Cheaters?

With all layers of government doing everything in their considerable power to subsidize and reward cheaters, criminals, frauds, incompetents, and fools, it is no wonder.

After a good honest taste of the stew that is America — the mix of tradition, reason, and scripture — it’s hard not to come to one conclusion:

Needs more Puritans.

“A Nation Of Cheaters?”

I guess those Stuyvesant High School students must have learned their ethics from watching American bankers. After all, they had a front row seat; Stuyvesant is located only a few short blocks from Wall Street.

As a graduate of Stuyvesant High School myself, I know enough about history to know that the school was named for a man who came from a nation of cheaters. After all, Stuyvesant’s predecessor as Director General of New Amsterdam, Peter Minuit, cheated the indigenous inhabitants (who had no concept of land ownership) out of the island of Manhattan for a mere $24.00

So all of us, including New Yorkers such as yourself, Professor Mead, are the beneficiaries of cheaters.

Excuse me, but haven’t there been long chapters of US history in which hucksters, posers and other enterprising,”get-it-any-way-I-can” self-promoters were not only admired but CELEBRATED? The “gilded” generation following the Civil War is one that comes to mind. A fairly small-government era if I read it correctly (though that same gov’t could be splendidly big, bountiful and generous when it came to Big Business: high tarriff walls, etc).

Naturally I like Prof Mead’s emphasis for the most part. I also find it refreshingly unmodern (or is it PRE-modern?). But let me explain: For me the acme of modernity is faith in the power of technically “fool-proof” institutions, systems, procedures, etc. In short, mechanisms that run SO smoothly and dependably – or so the faith goes – as to obviate the need for moral character in their human components and clientele. And of course we’ve all seen, in our own times, how well these technically brilliant mechanisms – both public and private – have worked to neutralize (or is it facilitate?) natural human vice.

But there may be a whole other dimension to the problem. As often as not, it seems to me, this country has preferred to take a “Nietzschean” path: To admire the “strength and integrity” of the successful bad over the weakness and inconsistency of the attempted good (after all, when attempted from the meager resources of our “fallen” natures, the good usually proves much harder to do). I mean, it would be nice if more smart Americans would use their boundless energy and enterprise to do the right thing, but hell, at least they’re doing SOMETHING, right? Not to mention being SUCCESSFUL at it? Maybe even (hushed tones and drum rolls) generating WEALTH?

Wasn’t it the American-born poet T S Eliot who wrote in one place (and strongly hinted in many others): “It is better to do evil than to do nothing”? (And for the record, frankly I can think of hardly ANY of his classically-known British contemporaries making a statement even approaching that – H G Wells being one important exception I know, the “futurist” R G Stapledon possibly another, though not nearly as well-remembered as Wells or Eliot. But if you can think of any others your comments are welcome.)

Lastly, whatever we more righteous ones may condemn Americans for doing or failing to do over the past 15 years, let no one accuse the majority of them of not being EXTREMELY – in some cases self-punishingly – busy. I’ll grant you, in some instances the work wasn’t so much done WELL – i.e, with both eyes lovingly on the task at hand – as with one keen eye on the worker’s advancement (and who knows if their job future didn’t depend on it? – “If you ain’t movin’ up yer movin’ out”). All the same, personally I can’t think of any full-time work that’s harder, more round-the-clock, or – in the long run – more self-eviscerating, than self-promotion.

“I know hundreds of Stuyvesant HS grads. Cheating has been a significant part of the culture there for the last 3 decades.” (Caveat Bettor)

I seriously tend to doubt that but just in case, I should say that I graduated from Stuyvesant more than “3 decades” ago. In fact, when I attended, it was still an all male school; females were not admitted until the early 1970s.

I think you’re right to be concerned about cheating but I think you’re wrong to write as though it’s a growing phenomenon. I know many current high school students and they seem to be about the same mix of goofs and earnest hard workers that teenagers always seem to be. The only difference I notice is that they work a whole lot harder than I did in high school. Sure, they know the cheaters among them and they pretty much figure that that’s their problem. They already know they can’t fake their way through life in today’s world.