The War on Intellectualism

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Extra points to Siro for calling neocons "intellectuals".

Oh now that the real Boris is back you can leave Apolyton now.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Extra points to Siro for calling neocons "intellectuals".

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/magazine/neo.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north180.html

[Guynemer]

Of course they're intellectuals. There are liberal intellectuals, and conservative intellecutals, and moderate intellectuals.

If the choice was between a dullard and an intellectual, I'd take the intellectual every goddamned time.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Extra points to Siro for calling neocons "intellectuals".

[Fake Boris]

Neoconservatism is an intellectual farce, a post-rationalization of British imperialism and its accompanying economic liberalism.

Linking to Fukuyama is pretty much a own-goal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Of course they're intellectuals. There are liberal intellectuals, and conservative intellecutals, and moderate intellectuals.

Damn straight. The neo-con movement (as are just about all political ideologies) was begun by a group of very bright intellectuals.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Damn straight. The neo-con movement (as are just about all political ideologies) was begun by a group of very bright intellectuals.

Very bright people are never half as smart as they think they are.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Which was Siro's point all along .

[Impaler[WrG]]

Damn straight. The neo-con movement (as are just about all political ideologies) was begun by a group of very bright intellectuals.

All political ideologies originate in the intellectual class but the drivers and followers of these ideologies are from different classes. In the US the Intellectuals are by definition Liberal (in the classical sense of openess to new ideas, not the same as Socialist). Few if any other classes are actually Liberal, rather they adopt an Ideology thats in vogue for a generation and only change it under duress, and always they adopt something that intellectuals have cooked up out of public view. With a sufficient number and weight of other classes united behind an ideology it can become the dominant Zeitgeist of a generation or two. Reagan clearly marked the beginning of such an age.

Neo-conservatism benefited the wealthy, and they jumped on this bandwagon and quite literally took the reigns for themselves. The movement increased their power in absolute terms of more wealth and direct control but in a softer and far more subtle means. By exulting the inherent goodness of that class the rest of society is more willing bow to its judgment. But as with everything it ultimately goes to excess. Because the ruling class doesn't support the ideology beyond the fact that its a self advancement vehicle they inevitably start amending the ideology or at least the practice their of to serve themselves in an even more focused and direct ways that are in breach of the original ideology, Ideological bankruptcy results in a decade or two and the coalition of social classes breaks apart in search of new Ideologies that promote their interests better. Both left and right ideologies suffer the same pattern and always it is the Intellectuals who will furnish the ideas of the next age.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Damn straight. The neo-con movement (as are just about all political ideologies) was begun by a group of very bright intellectuals.

Who convinced themselves that some really stupid **** was a great idea. Which was Siro's point. I agree with Aeson's rejoinder, however: given a choice between an intellectual and a know-nothing, gimme the intellectual.

More to the point of the thread, I think, is the pervasive hatred of "intellectuals" in our culture (and the consequential glorification of know-nothings). Maybe it's not unique, but I get the feeling we take it further than other Western countries. You see it in public school. You see it in public life. It's everywhere, and it's messed up.

-Arrian

[rah]

I don't think it's a backlash against intellectuals as much as a backlash against intellecutal snobs. I agree with
Dauphin and Patroklos. I think people would prefer their leaders to be smart, but if the person doesn't have the common sense not to make people think they're stupid in comparision, they're lacking a basic leadership skill. So attacking people because they're snobs is quite effective.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Indeed... after all, President Clinton wasn't, as far as I know, tagged with an anti-intellectual tab, even though he was incredibly smart (Rhodes Scholar, as well).

[Naked Gents Rut]

Clinton knew how to talk to normal people without condescension.

[Barnabas]

Who has the best economists? Who would have the best brains in his cabinet? Obama or McCain?

[Patroklos]

Considering Obama already has the likes of Raines working for him, I have little faith in his ability to select advisors.