On Anti-Intellectualism
I've seen the charge thrown around that our side is anti-intellectual. We hate intellect and those who possess it! We're just a bunch of rubes.
Well, perhaps we are guilty of anti-intellectualism. But before I am found guilty, I think quaintly that my rights as a citizen give me the opportunity to speak in my own defense.
So, let's look at what we mean by anti-intellectualism. I think, in fact, that both our critics and some of our supporters often conflate two different kinds of anti-intellectualism.
There is one kind of anti-intellectualism that stems from a considered doubtfulness of any specialist’s ability to micro-manage extremely complicated, intractable problems.
There is another sort of anti-intellectualism that is suspicious of anything that is complex itself out of a kind of fear that such complexity is a tool being used to pull the wool over our eyes.
Let us regard these phenomena in turn together.
The first kind of anti-intellectualism has been given popular expression through Bill Buckley’s “Boston Phonebook” dictum and Hayek’s Road to Serfdom. These statements are more urgent than, but draw their power from, far deeper arguments found in the trenchant philosophical stances of the Scottish Enlightenment, in the skepticism of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, in the humility of Christian theology, in the self-examination of man by Montaigne, in the wisdom of the market found in Smith, and in the prudent statecraft of Edmund Burke and our Founders.
This anti-intellectualism wonders at and loves the complexity of man and the world. It observes carefully, analytically, notes the subtle gradations between man's motivations and the permanency of his nature. It has slow eyes, and slow hands. It looks to a program which can improve man and his estate but which regards perfection as impossible. It is therefore skeptical of the imaginings of some of the best and brightest that they have all the answers to all the problems, and need only be given the authority to implement perfect solutions. Its highest exemplars look down upon this kind of conceit, because from their height, seeing farther, they note the problems that the public intellectual is too clumsy to see. But, loving the best and brightest, especially in their youth, it speaks to them in an attempt to convert them to its way of thinking.
But there is another kind of anti-intellectualism, and this one stems from different sources, and comes to different conclusions. Herein, I would include the hearty, gut reaction, populist sentiment anti-intellectualism that says “that’s some sleight of hand, sonny. I’m being sold a bill of goods and I don’t buy it.” It has its roots in practical experience, and draws its strength from the practice of the Christian virtue of humility. It rebukes those who think themselves the best and brightest, it rejects them as foolhardy idealists and their studies as a time better spent on more practical things.
This anti-intellectualism is possessed of a firm faith in a few simple truths about the world that work. It is unaware, perhaps, that these truths may contradict one another, or at least it is unconcerned if they should. It is impatient with forms of thinking and argumentation that require extended periods of long reflection, practice, and learning, because it feels they get too caught up in things that have no immediate bearing on the world. It knows the truth already and longs for someone, anyone, who will just speak it loudly and plainly.
These two forms of anti-intellectualism do not fit together philosophically. They are often at odds temperamentally. It is a mistake to conflate them.
But they are permanent, and they are akin to two different musical chords which can be harmonized in a polity. They are both needed, I say, in their own way.
So, jurors, am I guilty?
- Comment (172)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
oops
Edited on July 12, 2011 at 11:53pmSep '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
BThompson: Do you think, though, that calling people squishes and RINOs is a smart opening gambit in appealing to those who don't agree with you or is helpful at all in persuading them?
Do you think "Bachmann–Schmachmann" (Mike Murphy's term) is a smart opening gambit in appealing to those who don't agree with you or is helpful at all in persuading them?
Nov '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Crow's Nest:
But they are permanent, and they are akin to two different musical chords which can be harmonized in a polity.
This is straight up Platogiarism.
Jan '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
A couple of thoughts. I don't think Murphy is trying to persuade anyone of anything, I think he's offering his analysis of the race. And I don't think "Bachmann-Schmachmann" is directed at Bachmann herself or intended as a dig at Bachmann as a politician per se. I think it's directed at the hype recently surrounding Bachmann and the raised expectations regarding her viability as a general election candidate. I think Murphy was actually very complimentary toward Bachmann on a personal level and readily acknowledged her smarts, abilities, creditentials, and value as a champion of conservativism in the House. I think his main point was that her very conservative and strident strain of conservativism wouldn't play well with the moderate Republicans or independents needed to win the general election.
Edited on July 13, 2011 at 2:05amSep '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
I guess it's just a matter of style, BT. I've tried to make the point on numerous threads since Thursday that Murphy's viewpoint was not offensive to me, but much of his commentary was. What I see as derision you seem to see as even-tempered spin. So be it. We all respond to stimuli differently. There are plenty of people I can get the same points from—Mickey Kaus, for example—but also enjoy listening. Certainly Murphy's not losing any energy not having me as a fan so, in the end, no harm done. ... Also, I'd much rather be called a RINO than ridiculous.
Jan '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
I don't see it as even tempered spin. I don't think he's spinning at all. I think he's offering his unvarnished opinion that comes from decades of experience running campaigns and deeply analyzing the electorate, the whole electorate. He's being very blunt, yes. Is it in some ways gratuitous, maybe. But I don't think he's crossing any lines. I think he's reminding people here that they are much more highly attuned to conservative arguments and ways of thinking than the vast majority of America, and that what they find so persuasive is often anathema to many in America, or goes right over the heads of many. I think he's telling people that it's important not to forget about those people because you need a lot of them in order to win. It shocks me that people are so thin skinned toward that. It really astonishes me, in fact.
May '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
This is a Chomsky-esque problem. Our anti-intellectualism is not anti-intellect or even anti-intellectual. We are anti-intellectualism.
Put in terms we find more clear, it's not brains with titles that turn us off, but titles without brains.
It is my own contention that our modern higher education system serves largely to dispense public credentials of socialist dogmatic conformity.
Mar '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Jan-Michael: Plato's pretty much a good source worth consulting on just about all political and moral matters.
I totally plagiarized him.
But, all things considered, so has much of western philosophy. :)
Haakon: good points all. The intellectual himself is one sort of problem which I distinguish from other types of very smart people and most specifically from philosophers--as Socrates taught us in his dialogues with the sophists.
But it is the aura of the intellectual, the -ism that results from certain kinds of pandering to him and by him, that is truly most distasteful and worthy of our ridicule.
Jan '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Western Chauvinist
Why did you find it surprising? · Jul 12 at 2:05pm
For the same reason it surprised Murray: our cultural narrative is that marriage is falling apart at the top, when in fact, it's falling apart at the bottom.
Jun '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
My son and I took the afternoon off yesterday. I get back this morning and this thread is still hopping. I've got to do some work today!.
Anyway, BT good work holding your own. Katie, making him work for it : )
BT's right that many do not understand us and that some of those people must be persuaded to vote with us anyway to get the government out of more foolish hands. There was a time when I did not see how a rational person could fully commit to either GOP or Dems. A symptom of youth? an aesthetic choice not to pay close attention to political "sausage making" (and the opportunity cost of time spent keeping up with it all)? Peer pressure? all of the above, who knows? We have to know that there are those who fear the town elders from Footloose as much as the bureaucrat wielding the rubber stamp NO like a samurai.
This seems to a fairly intellectual conversation.
Is David Mamet an intellectual? and can there be a conservative swing in that demographic?
Edited on July 13, 2011 at 4:22pmJun '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
That was supposed to be a smiley : )
Sep '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
"Happy the nose that can't smell a barbarian."