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:
Jan '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
This is exactly the bizarre sense of purity I'm referring to. Rick Santorum was a squish? Really?
May '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
BThompson
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. · Jul 12 at 12:56pm
True. But I wouldn't call either of them true conservatives. I'm against big government Republicans almost as much as I'm against "pro-choice" Republicans.
Jan '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Western Chauvinist
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.
That wasn't what surprised me; it's who is adhering to those values that I found so surprising. Specifically, that marriage rates among the top 20% of non-Hispanic whites has stayed in the high 80s while it's plummeted among the bottom 20% of that same group. I found that pretty shocking.
May '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
BThompson
This is exactly the bizarre sense of purity I'm referring to. Rick Santorum was a squish? Really? · Jul 12 at 12:58pm
Yes of course he was in that case. He went wobbly. His big tent pragmatism led to practical disaster for our party and for the pro-life cause. He now says it was the biggest mistake of his career. I think it was a fatal mistake. I mean in terms of his career.
But don't assume that because I consider someone a squish it means I would never vote for him or want him purged from the party. I will do as others do in our kind of republic: vote for the candidate I think has the best chance of advancing the cause, and try to persuade others to see it as I do.
Edited on July 12, 2011 at 10:05pmMar '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
And here's yet another wrinkle of this discussion: the "faith based initiatives" scheme means that Christian charities aren't discriminated against in federal dollars, but it does mean that some fairly right wing causes get funded.
(although, in fairness, there are a number of left wing causes that also receive federal funding).
May '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
For instance, I gave money to Scott Brown. I thought he stood a good chance of moving his district well right of where it was under Kennedy. But I certainly wouldn't support him in a run for the Republican nomination for President.
Jan '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
That is great. I agree with that approach 100%. 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?
May '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
BThompson
.... someone who votes the way I want 90% of the time is not a RINO.
It's not how often. It's how much. The Republican party is an alliance. Within any alliance, members will act against each other's interests. But which interests? One should distinguish between core and peripheral issues.
What is the core purpose of the Republican party? "RINO" is applied differently by different people, but it is always used by people who assume that the GOP does indeed have a purpose. Do you believe the Republican party — meaning its entire, diverse membership — stands for something? If so, what?
If you believe the party stands for anything at all, then whoever acts against that central purpose may be fairly labeled a pretender. That the label is often misapplied does not completely undermine its usefulness.
Jan '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Even if we could agree when it is fairly applied and when it is not (a point I don't concede is easily or neatly done), showing contempt for people that are going against the tide, especially if they are from ideologically diverse constituencies, is just a foolish way to try and win them over or keep them in line. It serves no good purpose.
Edited on July 12, 2011 at 10:31pmMay '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?
That's a good question.
Both terms are overused (most use of "squish" on Ricochet seems to be friendly goading), but there is some benefit to reminding people that our alliance has limits.
The US has cooperative relationships with dozens of nations around the world, but only some are invited into NATO. Some applications to join NATO have been rejected. Why? Because non-exclusive membership undermines the purpose of an alliance.
This wouldn't be a problem if the Republican party advertised clear central goals.
Jul '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
I am going to leave it to the Republicans to argue over what it means to be a Republican. Since American parties don't actually control their own memberships in any meaningful way, I think the argument is counterproductive. But then, I come to this site over and over to persuade people to my way of thinking and so far all I have to show for it is a mug I paid for, so why listen to me.
Jul '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
BThompson
That is great. I agree with that approach 100%. 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? · Jul 12 at 1:12pm
Wait...that's a trick question, isn't it?
Jan '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Aaron Miller
The US has cooperative relationships with dozens of nations around the world, but only some are invited into NATO. Some applications to join NATO have been rejected. Why? Because non-exclusive membership undermines the purpose of an alliance.
This wouldn't be a problem if the Republican party advertised clear central goals.
Persuading a majority of the population to give you authority isn't the same as setting the terms for an alliance. Alliances aren't a matter of majorities, what's more they typically involve much more well defined and narrower functions than governing a diverse polity. I don't accept the analogy.
Jan '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
It shouldn't be. ;)
May '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
We don't have to convince half of voters to join the Republican party. We just have to convince half that voting Republican is better than voting Democrat.
Republicans can afford to be the lesser of two evils. That's how I view them!
But I admit I'm being a little stubborn about the RINO label. Generally, it probably does more harm than good. We should instead hammer on the goal which voters must unite around: limited, local government.
Edited on July 12, 2011 at 10:58pmDec '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Tom Meyer
Western Chauvinist
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.
That wasn't what surprised me; it's who is adhering to those values that I found so surprising. Specifically, that marriage rates among the top 20% of non-Hispanic whites has stayed in the high 80s while it's plummeted among the bottom 20% of that same group. I found that pretty shocking. · Jul 12 at 1:01pm
Why did you find it surprising?
Aug '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
The vast majority of American Evangelicalism is rooted historically in the Anabaptist revolutionary impulse of Muntzer and the Radical Reformation, not in the Magisterial Reformation of Calvin and Luther. Luther called them Schwärmer- fanatics.
Evangelical anti-intellectualism is traced back to Zwickau, not Wittenberg, Geneva, or Edinburgh.
Though a conservative Lutheran herself, the religious right vote Bachmann is courting is rooted in Anabaptist teaching.
There is a small minority of confessional reformed Christians in the mix, and among them there are differing opinions the role of Christianity in Politics (great discussion on that here).
The trend among thoughtful Christians seeking a career in public life is to forgo both social conservatism (code for the religious right) and the liberal mainline denominations, and return to either Rome or Constantinople. The phenomenal intellectual tradition found in Roman Catholicism is very compelling, and Istanbul is rooted in the ages.
I certainly understand the reasoning of those intellectual refugees, but I find Calvinism intellectually rigorous enough.
Edited on July 14, 2011 at 4:04amSep '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
When wrestling the anti-intellectual or know nothing canard from those on the left, its mandatory to avail yourself of the masterwork by Jacques Barzun:
The House of Intellect, helpfully referred to in this recent article at First Things magazine called, appropriately enough, Teachers Without Students. To wit:
Edited on July 12, 2011 at 11:07pmAug '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
katievs
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. · Jul 12 at 12:51pm
Katievs,
I am with you on the limited government point.
Paying both taxes and private school tuition-or the cost of home schooling- is the ransom parents pay Ceasar to freely educate their own children.
Zealously anti-intellectual religion in any form is never without some danger.
And thank so much for being a part of Ricochet, I am surely not alone in saying how much I look forward to your contributions!
Edited on July 12, 2011 at 11:51pmAug '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Leslie Watkins: Shovel-ready projects—how nonsensical was that?!?! · Jul 12 at 9:50am
I have been to the circus. The guy behind the elephant always has an abundance of shovel ready projects to look forward to.
Edited on July 12, 2011 at 11:56pm