Comparing Street Smarts And George Washington

Everyone knows some young person who is impressively street smart but does poorly in school. What a waste, we think, that one who is so intelligent about so many things in life seems unable to apply that intelligence to academic work. This is how Gerald Graff’s essay titled “Hidden Intellectualism" begins. Although this is not Graff's personal belief, he is approaching us with a common stereotype. After reading Graff's article I would say that I agree with him from beginning to end. Gerald Graff begins with differentiating between “book smarts” and “street smarts". Book smart is defined as a person who is intelligent and very well educated academically. People that are book smart can write and discuss subjects taught in school. On the

Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State, and Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of Treasury were members of of Washington’s Cabinet who did not like each other. They constantly argued about political issues. One issue that they argued about was the opening of a National Bank. Hamilton wanted the bank to have a place to deposit money, print money, and a place for loans to be given. Jefferson explained the bank gave the government too much power, so it would over power states. They also did not want one group to have a monopoly. (Doc. 2)This was Jefferson’s view and showed strict constriction which was the idea that the government is allowed to do only what the constitution said they can do. Another issue that occurred was that Jefferson wrote a memo about Hamilton. Jefferson wrote that Hamilton was a Monarchist and was corrupt and would destroy the government. He also wrote that he does not care about the poor and the average man but only the rich and wealthy. This was written in the perspective of Jefferson and was a hundred percent bias against Hamilton. Hamilton was known as an elitist so Jefferson used this to his advantage. (Doc. 3) After this memo Hamilton wrote a document about Jefferson in response. He wrote that Madison and Jefferson are hostile and that they like women. He said they had a womanish attachment to France and womanish resentment against

One of the main dangers that President Washington sees are the political parties that are, at this point, just starting to be formed by people like Hamilton and Jefferson. Washington doesn’t like the idea of a divided government because he believes it is not in the best interest of the people and nation. He clarifies this when he writes, “The unity of government which constitutes you one people is

Unity was something Washington believed was important. George Washington concluded after 8 years of presidency that unity was key to the success of the United States. In his address, he wrote that “the unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you” (pg 1 paragraph 2). The first president was trying to tell the American people that the unity of our government is important and should be important to the people. After 8 years, Washington watched and saw how Hamilton and Jefferson fought and how they were starting to divide into parties. He knew, as president that division could lead to fighting, which could lead to the weakening of America. The weakness of America

During Washington’s second term, the French Revolution was starting to end. This split the two parties further apart when Washington wanted to be neutral and Jefferson, his Secretary of State, wanted to support the new French Republic. Something that also led to

Conflicting views and contrasting ideologies have always existed throughout the history of United States politics. Alexander Hamilton, who led Federalist Party, believed that a powerful central government was necessary while Thomas Jefferson, who led the Jeffersonian Republican Party, favored an agrarian nation with most of the power left to the states. Although Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson were similar in that they both harbored good intentions and tried to keep the best interests in mind for the future of the United States, their policies were drastically different. Without doubt, both of their contrasting ideas served a vital role in forming the government.

Academic work should not define intelligence nor should a job define ability; a person, regardless of grades, degrees, or job title, is an intellect. Together, Gerald Graff, a coauthor of They Say I say, professor, and former anti-intellect, author of "Hidden Intellectualism," and Mike Rose, professor, author, and in depth thinker, author of "Blue-Collar Brilliance," share two different perspectives on what an intellect truly is. Yet, both writings hold meaningful points and experiences to prove who qualifies to be an intellect. Society continuously focuses on what leads to a successful and rounded life: go to school, graduate, go back to school, get a degree, and then a job. It is believed that these high expectations of higher academics enables one to be more successful is correct; however, it is not. It is a person’s individual goals that give them the success they wish to have whether that be education, volunteering, or donating. Also, street smarts is not to be overlooked; a person with common sense can know more than a Doctor. Typically, a person can have either common sense or intelligence, not both. Street smarts is, without a doubt, a superior quality to possess as it encompasses more in life than just a degree does. For example, it is more appropriate to know how to cross a street properly in life than know how to perform a craniotomy. Furthermore, one does not gain knowledge and life lessons through school alone, but through experience,

As I read Gerald Graff’s Hidden Intellectualism I agree that “street smart” can also be adapted in a scholarly setting. Graff attest that “street smart” overpowers academic intellect. Graff uses his childhood experience to prove his arguments. I’m on Graff’s side of argument on his beliefs that “street smart” is gained before academic intellect. In my own experience as a child growing up, I was around agriculture from the day I was

Washington trusted both of them and they were both very capable leaders & brilliant thinkers. Also, they were leaders in their fields. Alexander Hamilton was an expert with financial issues, so he was apart of the Department of Treasury, and Jefferson had good relations with foreign places, so he was with the Department of State.

Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were completely at odds in their vision on how America was to develop. Hamilton wanted to concentrate power in a centralized federal government with limited access and Jefferson wished to diffuse it among all the eligible freemen of the time. Alexander Hamilton feared anarchy and distrusted popular rule while Jefferson feared tyranny and thought in terms of liberty and freedom.

     Jefferson, as a Republican, believed in a society that distrusted the rich and that was run by farmer-citizens. He was a strong supported of not the upper class but, "the people". A defender of human liberty, Jefferson believed in a minimum of government and favored power at the local level. Jefferson also believed that if people were given the opportunity, they would be decent and reasonable. Jeffersons supporting party disagreed with many of the things that Hamilton and the Federalists proposed and passed as laws, including the idea of the national bank. Madison, in fact, argued on behalf of the Republicans that the federal government had no righ to establish a federal bank because it was not among the enumerated powers of Congress found in the Constitution. The Republicans also ignored the Naturalization Act, nor

Though both Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson served as members of President Washington’s cabinet, the two held very different views on the newly founded U.S. government, interpretation of its constitution, and the role of the “masses” in that government. These conflicting views would develop in two political parties, the Federalists led by Hamilton and the Democratic-Republicans led by Jefferson. Although both political parties presented enticing aspects, Hamilton’s views were much more reasonable and fruitful when compared Jefferson’s views; idealistic and too strict in reference to the constitution.

Jefferson and supporter James Madison wanted international independence which would evolve through its own expansion in the western part of North America. This naturally meant good relations with France, since they were Britain’s biggest enemy. Hamilton also believed in a Bank of the United States but was opposed by Jefferson and Madison. The faction sharing the beliefs of Jefferson and Madison became known as the Democratic Republican Party.

Washington had also been heard to say that “to only stay away from any political parties such as the Republicans and Democrats, along with the rest of the other parties after the second president Jefferson had his own party of Jeffersonian but they didn’t follow what he asked for or about almost immediately.

The major point that Washington heavily address is the eradication of political parties within the US. According to Washington political parties "agitate[s] the community with ill-founded and false alarms;" meaning that political parties cause a disruption within the community's cohesion. Political parties can cause a huge schism between groups of people. Since parties have a certain platform that expresses a groups moral, economical, and social views, it can be easy and often common place for those of opposing parties to be have tension. Washington knew that this would be the case when if political parties continued. Each party would have their own agenda meaning that they would focus on the parties interest and not truly advocate for the countries