It's remarkable how small, mean and petty we seem, now, in comparison with those who came before.  

Think of past leaders in politics, art, literature; past cultural critics, past scholars.  Think of most anyone who lived before us of any note who were not obviously monsters or notable for their monstrosity and think of those in their position now and, as Ozymandias (as Shelly called him) proclaimed, despair!

Our Politicians can barely speak when not reading a script; can barely write without assistance.  Complete sentences are rare in their discourse in most situations.  As for their thoughts, if they express them honestly (something we can't assume) they're unsophisticated at best, bovine or malicious at worst.  They're concerns are, as a matter of necessity to be fair, with the acquisition of money to prolong they're status and obtain the influence those who have political influence.  This has probably been the case, more or less, for quite some time.  But at least at the higher levels politicians of the past, though they had to make deals, were intelligent and some even principled.   Think of Lincoln, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, the Roosevelts, referring only to Americans.

Focusing again on our Great Republic, what poets do we have to speak of since Wallace Stevens, Robert Frost, Robert Lowell, Langston Hughes, E.E. Cummings or even Carl Sandburg?  Let's throw in Eliot and Auden, who may at least be called Americans of a sort.

Journalism has nobody of status.  Whatever gravitas journalists had died with Edward R. Murrow and Walter Lippman, though people like Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley were deserving of respect.  Now when journalists are not outright whores and hypocrites of the kind we may see every day on a certain network, they're uninspired.

I confess I know little of modern art, the little knowledge I have probably ending in Picasso.  I am fond of the photorealists.  I find the perfection of their mimicry of street scenes and Americana to be charming.  I don't know if I think they're great artists, however.

I won't bore the reader of this post with a review of my opinions on every field of art or culture.  But I'm unable to think of any person who would be a worthy successor of those considered preeminent in their field in years past; sometimes long past.

I suppose this could be considered a mere rant on my part, the typical spiel of an aging man harping on the glory of the "good old days."  But I think the lack of or decrease in the quality of our thought and discourse is evident.  

If I'm right, why this is the case presents an interesting question.  It's likely we're better educated now than in the past.  We certainly have access to information of all kinds that we had no access to not that long ago,  We should be better informed if nothing else.  Those with talent are able to communicate it far more easily than the talented could years ago.  There tools available that didn't exist 50 years ago.  One doesn't have to catch the attention of a publisher to circulate fiction or nonfiction, or get an art gallery to display one's work, or have someone in what what used to be called the record business introduce our music to the public.  Opportunities are available to all to promote their work, their thoughts, their everything, to everyone.

Perhaps that's the problem, however.  There have always been far more people with little or no talent or ability, or mediocrities, than there have been geniuses or people with great ability.  In the past, we only Heard of those who were remarkable.  Now we hear from everyone, good or bad, wise or foolish, able or inept.

As a result, it takes a real effort to discern great artists, writers, painters, musicians amidst all the sound and fury.  As to politics, the need for popularity and money induces politicians to appeal to all they can rather than anyone knowledgeable or thoughtful.  There is no incentive to do otherwise.

There's no incentive to be thoughtful or knowledgeable, for that matter.  There's no arbiter or monitor to review or censor the opinions of anyone.  It isn't clear to me that this is a bad thing.  But the more voices there are the more noise there is, and when it is impossible to distinguish one from the other those worth hearing are not heard, and those who should not be heard or have nothing to say must be heard, by some at least.