I managed to restrain myself and avoid this fracas for 9 pages. My better judgment tells me I should continue that policy but I suppose its hard to stay away from a thread that causes Dave Wigler to resurface. Before delving into the topic, David, isn't it about time you played a little golf in Chicago? Let us know when you will be in town.
Turning to the substance of this thread, I think it illustrates the folly of off topic discussions. Make no mistake about it, I enjoy political discussion as much as the next fellow. I have friends from all over the political spectrum, both to the left and the right of my position. But this is not where I come to have those discussions. Moreover, I have found that it is rare that one sees significant change in another's overall political philosophy, which appears to be the focus here. These types of discussions are usually most productive when discrete issues are discussed and the interplay between political philosophy and particular objectives can be explored. But for whatever reason, periodically we can't seem to avoid these detours.
Incidentally, I believe that the nature of the interview encouraged this type of dialogue. While Tom has a wealth of knowledge and exhibits extraordinary devotion to GCA, most of the interview was only tangentially related to the subject. It was largely a personal memoir about a time and a segment of society with which most of us have little direct familairity. To the extent that members of the strata which he describes were the dominant actors in the development of many prominent clubs, tournaments and golf associations, they clearly had an important effect on the development of the game and its venues. But the first portion of the interview had more to do with a particular social class than it did with the game. So by creating an interview of this type, Ran invited a discussion outside the realm of GCA.
But I did not read it as suggesting that the stratification was right (or wrong) or as a lament for the passing of that time. Rather, I saw it as Tom's describing a world in which he lived and the values he observed, some of which I suspect he may wish were in greater supply today. As the grandchild of immigrants who came to this country during the great immigration wave in the first 20 years of the 20th century, I have no first hand knowledge of that society. Certainly my grandparents and my parents would have been barred from participation for a variety of reasons, ranging from financial to ethnic to religious. But I take great pride and satisfaction that in our society families like mine, through the dint of opportunity, luck, hard work and perhaps a little talent were able to move into the mainstream and enjoy a modicum of success. I believe that one of the greatest challenges facing our country is to make certain that the opportunity for upward mobility continues. It lends legitimacy to our democracy and vitality to our economy. Coupled with the basic political freedoms embodied in the Constitution,it is the ultimate reason to "buy in" to our system. So while I understand Mr. Kmetz' impassioned critique of the perceived societal unfairness exhibited in the interview, I think he misperceives the intent. I suspect that he also overstates the problem although I do not pretend that we have achieved anywhere near my ideal of social or economic justice.
A few other random observations. I too read Karl Marx, starting at the early age of 13. I continue to believe that his analysis was a brilliant critique of 19th century capitalism which continued into the early 20th century. But Marx was unable to anticipate that capitalism would evolve; that owners of the means of production would find a way to "share" with the proletariat absent a revolution. John Kenneth Galbreath in "Countervailing Power" explains some of the reasons including the rise of organized labor. Marx, as a follower of Hegel, could not conceive that anything less than a revolution would be a strong enough antithesis to pure capitalism to cause change. Now, we see continued evolution and change. I am not enough of an economist or prognosticator to suggest where it is going. But most of the underlying motivations remain the same.
RJ, I would love to talk about what you call "balkanization" in our society offline. I use different terms but I share many of the same views. However, I am not sure that it is that much different from prior experience.
Finally, as much as I like and respect Mike Young's contributions to the board I think he got it wrong this time. This board should be a place where individuals who share a common interest can come and speak freely. So long as we treat each other with mutual respect, there should be no consequences for what we say except to the extent that our fellows may think less of us or our intellect. In that sense, it is akin to the "bull", or in my era, "rap" sessions of our youths. Mr. Kmetz did nothing that should impact on his performance at work. If his views "bubble up" and infect his relationship with his employers, they will know. But if every employee who resented his boss' position, intelligence, morality and the like were terminated, the amount of turnover would be staggering. While in a perfect world, everyone would have a job they lliked with people they respected, we all know it isn't that way and people have to eat. So barring the ability to create a society similar to that envisioned by utopian socialists like Sainte- Simon, we will have to accept the fact that some people work with those that they don't like or respect. So long as they do their jobs they should be left alone. While punishing them for their views may be permissable, it doesn't make that act right or honorable. Sometimes exposure to the "enemy" leads to understanding. Maybe Mr. Kmetz' views will evolve. Time will tell.
As usual, I have gone on too long. Enough for now.