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:
May '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
I do think squish is a very serviceable term.
Jul '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
BThompson
I don't think so. I think the people valuing nuance are usually the people calling for a big tent. The purists think a big tent is stupid euphemism and an insidious notion. They'd prefer a smaller tent of the truly committed. · Jul 12 at 12:18pm
Now I think you're fooling yourself. You mentioned how terms like "RINO" are pejorative, yet you fail to see how "nuance" is used as a club to whack the mouth-breathers. Call me kooky, but the Mike Murphys of the world sure don't act like their version of a big tent is large enough to accommodate guys like me. Maybe I'm a little sensitive; maybe you are, too.
Aug '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
I'm a latecomer here, but kudos to Crow's Nest for a terrific post--very thoughtful and well-written.
Dec '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Tom Meyer Prager puts too much faith in common sense; if we could intuit what's true, there'd be little need for science. Take Charles Murray's lecture "The State of White America" where Murray concludes that -- against the stereotype the hedonistic "alternative" lifestyles of the rich -- marriage is far more intact in the top 20% of white Americans than in the bottom 20%. I can only speak for myself, but I was rather amazed. Thank goodness for studies!
Edited on Jul 12 at 09:53 am
I think you're conflating common sense with conventional wisdom. Common sense suggests people who observe traditional customs of marrying before having children and staying married would end up being more successful in life, monetarily and otherwise. Conventional wisdom, like "international opinion", is often way off the mark.
Jan '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Okay, well I see you do like to appeal to nuance. Rationalize the use of the term if you like, Katie, "in name only" implies people are acting as wolves in sheep's clothing. It's offensive. What's more it's a term that is thrown around at people like John McCain who has a lifetime ACU rating around 90 or something. I have my beefs with McCain and he makes me pull my hair out on some issues, but someone who votes the way I want 90% of the time is not a RINO. Even someone who only votes the way I'd like 65% isn't a RINO, especially when the alternative to that person is someone who will vote the way I like 10% of the time.
Edited on July 12, 2011 at 9:31pmJul '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Hear, hear! Post of the week, I'm thinking.
Jan '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
I think you're half right.
Jul '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
BThompson
I think you're half right. · Jul 12 at 12:33pm
Ha. And we both know which half.
May '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
BThompson
Rationalize the use of the term if you like, Katie, "in name only" implies people are acting as wolves in sheep's clothing. It's offensive.
Don't you think Susan Collins, Arlen Specter, Jim Jeffords, Mike Castle and Olympia Snowe are (for purposes of rhetorical shorthand) well-described as Republican In Name Only? I do.
Of course people will differ on the point depending on how they conceive what it means to be Republican.
People like Brooks and Frum seem to treat "the social issues" as an unwanted appendage. People like me see them as the very heart things.
Personally, I have particular contempt for politicians who court the votes of social conservatives only to vote with liberals once in office. They are not unlike wolves in sheep's clothing.
I don't believe I've ever called John McCain a RINO, but I did find his habit of "crossing the aisle" for big government initiatives worse than maddening.
Edited on July 12, 2011 at 9:40pmJan '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
:D
Aug '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Trace Urdan: Well if I grant Claire's third -- then I believe there is a fourth and I believe it is at the heart of the charge. It is the faith-based anti-intellectualism of social conservatives. (Ref: Mike Murphy's comments about the anti-Darwin wing of the party on the podcast.) Michele Bachmann and her husband carry this standard...
· Jul 12 at 6:38am
Great post Trace,
I lived many years among zealously anti-intellectual Evangelicals. I once petitioned for Pat Robertson- at a Kenneth Hagin rally. So I know that when I see it.
I know how challenging it is to move beyond that way of thinking, and I don't condescend to people who see no reason to move beyond it.
To your point:
It takes a great deal to acknowledge that you can disagree with someone over these tensions of faith and science but vote for him or her anyway based on shared views over, say, fiscal policy.
I agree.
I don't care if you think Jesus rode a dinosaur and votes Republican. That's none of my business.
I'll be on the far other end of the tent, voting for limited government.
May '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Personally, I am all for purging RINOs, or whatever you want to call them, from office. I think Christine O'Donnell's win over Mike Castle was the best thing to happen in Republican politics in my lifetime.
Aug '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Well said, and well done Crow's Nest.
Dec '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
I just want to throw out that this thread made me realize what a privilege $3.58/month can buy you at Ricochet. And funnily, it was the pi r-squared joke that made me think it!
Post of the week - seconded.
Jan '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
I don't put all of those people in the same category at all. I find Collins, Castle, and Snow way more reliable than Specter and Jeffords were. And I'll point this out, while I'm glad Toomey is in the senate now, had he not challenged Specter when he did we may not have Obamacare right now. Specter ended up being the deciding vote on Christmas Eve 2009. Had Toomey not primaried Specter, that is sought to purge Specter, we could have stopped Obamacare. We purified ourselves right into that monstrosity.
Mar '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Hi Scotty,
Thanks much for the kudos. I tried to be as even handed as I could in the effort to generate some discussion and we've had a number of good ones here. Thanks to everyone for your consideration.
May '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Squishy Blue RINO
I lived many years among zealously anti-intellectual Evangelicals. I once petitioned for Pat Robertson- at a Kenneth Hagin rally. So I know that when I see it.
I know how challenging it is to move beyond that way of thinking, and I don't condescend to people who see no reason to move beyond it.
No doubt each of our thinking is shaped by personal experience. I happen to travel in devout Catholic academic circles. So I don't often bump into that anti-intellectualism, though I know it's out there, and Pat Robertson types make me cringe.
On the other hand, I think there's less reason to fear this kind of anti-intellectualism than people on the left realize, because it goes hand in hand with a zeal for limited government. They don't want to impose their views through the education department like the left does; they want to abolish the education department.
May '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
BThompson
I don't put all of those people in the same category at all. I find Collins, Castle, and Snow way more reliable than Specter and Jeffords were. And I'll point this out, while I'm glad Toomey is in the senate now, had he not challenged Specter when he did we may not have Obamacare right now. Specter ended up being the deciding vote on Christmas Eve 2009. Had Toomey not primaried Specter, that is sought to purge Specter, we could have stopped Obamacare. We purified ourselves right into that monstrosity. · Jul 12 at 12:46pm
Well that's one way of looking at it. I think the fault lies with Bush and Santorum for going squishy at the critical moment.
"Reliable" is not an adjective I'd apply to Collins or Snow.
Jan '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Don't be so sure. Mike Huckabee was not exactly a limited government kind of guy, nor, unfortunately was our compassionate conservative evangelical president, GWB.
Jan '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Western Chauvinist
If you can, offer examples of scientific inquiry which have successfully countermanded common sense, especially in the last 10 or 20 years.
As a social science example, again, listen to Murray's 45-minute presentation at AEI last spring about how social standards among lower class non-Hispanic whites have been in free-fall while those among the top 20% have remained constant. It's mind-blowing.
As for examples among the harder sciences I'd say: 1) anything relating to Quantum Physics; 2) Heliocentricism; 3) Anything involving Neuroscience; and 4) The discovery/elusiveness of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.