Money and Class

The observations made by Lewis Lapham's Money and Class in America distinguishes the meaning of success and the required level for respect for Americans to that of other strong societies. In his supposed defense of the popular opinion that America is a place that wrongfully shows respect to those of higher economic class than other nations that hold art and intellect at a pedestal. With this, he agrees with Henry Adams that Americans are ignorantly herded to find "success" in the materialistic wealth because they have been "deflected by the pursuit of money". Though the idea that Americans favor and respect superficial matters is held true, Lapham's claim that they do so because they are socially forced to is invalid simply because there is still a choice. As shown through his contradictions in the essay, and the many artistic and intellectual American successes, it makes the average materialistic American too idle in their comfort to search for the other direction that they are so "deflected" from, which he denies.
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 sides with the suggestion that Americans hold the rich as the example of adequacy. This is because he applies it to the thought that Americans that are not rich because they chose not to do so. This is ridiculous on two levels. One is that 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 awkwardly defends the collective respect toward superficial matter. The other, more important, level is that he also contrarily supports the idea that Americans still have a choice in going the other route of respect that he claims is being deflected by generic social standards. America has a substantial list of profound intellectuals and artists that deserve the respect taken by the materialists.
What Lapham should have stated is that