Over the last twenty years we\u2019ve seen the neoliberal elite re-brand words like \u201ccreativity\u201d to mean anything but artistic endeavor and in fact to be applied almost solely to refer to business acumen. And that alleged acumen is portrayed as automatic qualifier for the shaping of major public policy.<\/p>\n
Can you imagine someone going to Washington and saying, \u201cI\u2019m a ballet dancer. I\u2019m creative. I want a cabinet position.\u201d That would be kind of ridiculous, but no more so than the sight of Bill Gates declaring his zeal to throw chickens down Bolivia\u2019s way, or the readiness of Hillary Clinton handlers to float the rumor that she wants to bring Sheryl Sandberg into her cabinet.<\/p>\n
I will accept that Sheryl Sandberg is good at what she does, but I don’t want her or anyone like her near positions of governance. What is her qualification or expertise in establishing public policy? What has being a mogul got to do with suitability for public service? What has maximization of profit by any and all means got to do with advancing the public welfare?<\/p>\n
The question never posed is, \u201cCreativity at what?\u201d Shoveling as much cash offshore as you can? Outsourcing as many jobs as you can? Like another favorite neoliberal shibboleth, \u201cinnovation,\u201d creativity is a value-neutral word\u00a0 when it lacks object or correlative. These terms are routinely touted and made meaningless by political, corporate and media elites.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Over the last twenty years we\u2019ve seen the neoliberal elite re-brand words like \u201ccreativity\u201d to mean anything but artistic endeavor and in fact to be applied almost solely to refer to business acumen. And that alleged acumen is portrayed as … Continue reading