The War on Intellectualism

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

It is part of the "dealing with the aftermath" problem, in my book.

You don't deal with the aftermath before closely scrutinizing what might and could happen. Renowned think tanks have even designed specialized plans and classification systems for that.

They must've known massive looting would take place, but the army only posted guards at the ministry of oil and ministry of interior affairs (which held a lot of important confidential info about Iraqi secret service and so on). At some point marine guards were even holding cloth before their mouth to protect them from the smoke coming from an adjacent ministry building that was on fire. Marines watched at people destroying the national museums and its riches because they had no orders to protect it.

You have to calculate that beforehand. My point is that they focused on the wrong things, and non-intellectuals like Palin would have even less interest for the important ones. They would prefer "to have the job done and win the war" and spout other hollow rhetoric. It's just... this has nothing to do with intellectualism, but with ignorance and bad decisions and bad priorities.

That has very little to do with intellectualism

I know. I was just replying on the Iraq issue

You can bet you that abandoning them was a rational decision. And yet it failed US policy 12 years later.

Depends on the way you put it. It was not a rational decision to abandon them. In their position abandoning allies isolated them in the world. They wanted to pursue their own goals. I don't think that has much to do with the trait intellectualism per se.

Empathy is again not something you'd find characteristic of a dry intellectual. More a quality of an average joe

Not when I listen to the foreign policy of Palin in the debate. (sorry I refer to her that often, but the debate just happened and she's the best example right now). I thought Biden had a more nuanced view, and Palin had the typical lack of empathy when being ill-informed: "Hey guys 'n gals we need to support our troops in Iraq and I feel confident we need to win this war because terrorists are bad and evil and ...""



[q]
que? [/QUOTE]

You refer to high politics all the time (decisions of state leaders about important security-related matters), while I tend to look more to low politics, like the so-called unimportant issues that are not often discussed in realism-inspired conversations. For example the destruction of the national heritage in Iraq caused by the war and the ensuing insurgency, which is important for the self-confidence of a nation (not to mention the scientific importance)

[Deity Dude]

Who was the last "intellectual" president the US had? Wilson?

[Sirotnikov]

and non-intellectuals like Palin would have even less interest for the important ones. They would prefer "to have the job done and win the war" and spout other hollow rhetoric

you have nothing to base this on beyond mere speculation about Palin being evil and careless.

They must've known massive looting would take place, but the army only posted guards at the ministry of oil and ministry of interior affairs (which held a lot of important confidential info about Iraqi secret service and so on). At some point marine guards were even holding cloth before their mouth to protect them from the smoke coming from an adjacent ministry building that was on fire. Marines watched at people destroying the national museums and its riches because they had no orders to protect it.

1) they mustnt have known. you'd be surprised at the mistakes even smart people make.
2) they had too little troops to guard everything
3) they made bad contingency plans.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Who was the last "intellectual" president the US had? Wilson?

Probably. IMHO, The US has only had three genuinely intellectual presidents: Wilson, Jefferson, and JQ Adams. And Obama would not be a fourth; he would be, instead, a president in what I'd call the "intellectual-pragmatist" tradition, which would include Madison, Theodore Roosevelt, and Jimmy Carter (as wel as candidates Stevenson and Gore). Both groups are mixed bags, obviously, though five of the six were great men if not great presidents; Wilson's the only out-and-out loser in the bunch.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

you have nothing to base this on beyond mere speculation about Palin being evil and careless.

Didn't say she was evil. I just watched the debate and she just vaguely talked about the war on terrorism and that "we are going to win in Afghanistan" without specifying why or how or when. She doesn't know what she's talking about. Does she even know the west is not winning in Afghanistan?

1) they mustnt have known. you'd be surprised at the mistakes even smart people make.
2) they had too little troops to guard everything
3) they made bad contingency plans.

1. Yeah. But I still wonder why. I wonder why Rumsfeld lied on television that there was no looting going on when reporters in the street were stating quite the opposite.

I have an inkling though

2. They had enough troops to guard everything. There are eye-witness reports that troops were even watching people loot buildings but didn't do anything about it. Only after a public outcry did they react and did they order soldiers to stop anyone in the streets with stuff that obviously didn't belong to them.

That was way too late however. In any case the not enough troops argument is really not true.

3. Yeah. But they simply didn't care about the archaeological remains to get that example back up again. American archaeologists had visited the pentagon three months earlier to lobby for the protection of archaeological sites, museums and other places of value. Apparently the US army and their political overlords didn't care much. They went in there with a specific set of goals and didn't bother to look into certain other aspects.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Democrats like to think that their Presidential candidates are "intellectuals", but it simply isn't true. Gore, Kerry and Biden were all mediocre students (at best). As for Obama, we don't know how well he performed in school since he won't release his transcripts, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was mediocre as well. It wouldn't matter anyway, as Democrats truly judge "intelligence" by what political positions a person takes.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Thue


There are stupid people in Denmark too, but we don't have that problem on the same scale as you. Being stupid does not have to mean that you believe being stupid is good, and vote for other stupid people.

I think the problem isn't that they are stupid, because a lot of them aren't too stupid to be good participants. The problem is that they aren't intellectual. They aren't informed enough.

That's the real problem here, and that's why the politicians just keep getting worse, because they are exploiting the non intellectual people.

[Thue]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
Democrats like to think that their Presidential candidates are "intellectuals", but it simply isn't true. Gore, Kerry and Biden were all mediocre students (at best). As for Obama, we don't know how well he performed in school since he won't release his transcripts, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was mediocre as well. It wouldn't matter anyway, as Democrats truly judge "intelligence" by what political positions a person takes.

According to Wikipedia he graduated "magna cum laude" from Harvard. That should be enough to qualify him as a good student...

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Patroklos
There is no war against intellectualism, there is a war against arrogance. You can easily be an intellectual without being a pompous ass.

OK. Now please address this hypothetical.

There are two people, X and Y. X is more intelligent and knowledgeable than Y, and knows it. Does X's acknowledgement of this superiority constitute arrogance, given that it is, in fact, the truth?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Traianvs

Btw thanks for calling me a moron. Much appreciated

Dude, don't worry about it. Being called a moron by an American is hilarious, as is being called a fascist by an Israeli. The fact that both groups can do it with a straight face is evidence of their lack of grasp on reality.

It really isn't their fault that they are poorly educated and uncivilized (as is proven in many other threads besides this one). You come from a civilized country where facts, reason and sound ethics play a role in public debate. They don't.

Have some pity for Pete's sake. They're children.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by aneeshm


OK. Now please address this hypothetical.

There are two people, X and Y. X is more intelligent and knowledgeable than Y, and knows it. Does X's acknowledgement of this superiority constitute arrogance, given that it is, in fact, the truth?

What is the purpose of acknowledging it?

Usually a clever person doesn't need to acknowledge it, she can let others figure it out for themselves. That is the non-arrogant way of going about it.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Agathon
Dude, don't worry about it. Being called a moron by an American is hilarious, as is being called a fascist by an Israeli. The fact that both groups can do it with a straight face is evidence of their lack of grasp on reality.

It really isn't their fault that they are poorly educated and uncivilized (as is proven in many other threads besides this one). You come from a civilized country where facts, reason and sound ethics play a role in public debate. They don't.

Have some pity for Pete's sake. They're children.

If only our mothers had taught us more about the Circles From Another Dimension...

[chequita guevara]

I take exception with the concept that this is a "new threat." Our great country has always been a bastion of anti-intellectualism ever since the Great Awakening. In the 1840s, we even had a Know-Nothing Party. A large swatch of this country is proud, and has always been proud, to be ignorant. Look at Texas, for example.

[Fake Boris]

Extra points to Siro for calling neocons "intellectuals".

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
In the 1840s, we even had a Know-Nothing Party.

So really nothing new then

But we had a Know-Nothing population after 1945