When Lapham states that “Men remain free to rise or fall in the world, and if they fail it must be because they willed it so”, he agrees with the suggestion that Americans see the rich as an example of being sufficient. This is because he feels that if Americans are not rich it’s because they chose not to be, this is inaccurate. First off, he contradicts the “absurdity” he finds in the idea that “…in the United states a rich man is perceived as being necessarily both good and wise…” He defends the respect toward superficiality. He then goes on to support the idea that Americans still have a choice in choosing the other direction that he claims is being deflected by social standards. America has intellectuals and artists that deserve the respect they would receive in other nations, but instead their respect is given to those who don’t deserve it.
What Lapham should have said is that men are free to deny whatever standards are being set for them. Though in other societies it is easier to find the artistic and intellectual respect, there is still choice, which Lapham claims is not true. As shown through his double standards in Money and Class in America and in his denial of free will that any good hearted American would