The War on Intellectualism

[Sirotnikov]

I'd prefer someone with the necessary skills, including an intellectual (=rational scientific) mind, over someone with good motivation skills, organising skills etc but without an intellectual attitude.

I think that you'd be setting yourself up for a failed promise candidate.

You must remember that a rational scientific mind is not the best to tackle international relationship problems.

Good people skills, good reading of people, knowing how to flatter someone, reading between the lines of smooth talk, is much more important. You need to understand another country's spirit and its national goals.

You can send a ton of rational minded professors to try and solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and they'd do very little good.

Most of the problems are simply not rational. You have people filled with incredible hate over an inflated view of the enemy. You have people worshipping stones or believing silly things written in an old book. You have people who base their decisions on things like national pride, personal prestige etc.

Rational scientific thinking would do very little to solve this problem, IMO.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

To be honest, my own opinion is that intellectual politicians make a great No. 2.

Take Condoleca Rice for example. She's definitly an intellectual. She was a good advisor and is a good secretary. But I can't see her as a good leader.

Condi's pretty average no? She hasn't pulled off anything important herself afaik. That may prove your point that intellectuals shouldn't be put in high places, but well firstly she belongs to the Bush group, and that group of people has lost all credibility in the world. Secondly she hasn't got too much of the other leadership qualities. Powell had a lot more of those in retrospect (at least... until he totally screwed up in UNSC with his presentation of the Iraqi WMD facilities )

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
You can send a ton of rational minded professors to try and solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and they'd do very little good.

That's not a very fair situation to judge anyone's abilities in. God Himself would fail there. (And if we're to believe He exists, actually caused the problem in the first place )

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

I think that you'd be setting yourself up for a failed promise candidate.

You must remember that a rational scientific mind is not the best to tackle international relationship problems.

Good people skills, good reading of people, knowing how to flatter someone, reading between the lines of smooth talk, is much more important. You need to understand another country's spirit and its national goals.

You can send a ton of rational minded professors to try and solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and they'd do very little good.

Most of the problems are simply not rational. You have people filled with incredible hate over an inflated view of the enemy. You have people worshipping stones or believing silly things written in an old book. You have people who base their decisions on things like national pride, personal prestige etc.

Rational scientific thinking would do very little to solve this problem, IMO.

I meant all those good leadership skills including that intellectual mind.

You may not know our ex-prime minister Guy Verhofstadt. Let me start off by saying he's a liberal and I don't support his party. I did tihnk he was a great leader because he had all the necessary qualities. He was an intellectual. He wrote several manifests in his career about how the state should be perceived and how it should be ruled. He could motivate people as well, he had a lot of charisma, but he didn't revert to too much populism neither. He was a normal guy as well, he wasn't untouchable or dry or strange. He was very creative, up-to-date on everything be it domestic or foreign, had a talent for debate on the basis of good arguments etc.

Doesn't mean I support him, but he was a good leader, and intellectual. That's what I've been trying to say. Berlusconi is in my book not an intellectual, but he has many good leadership qualities. Anyway I'd prefer Verhofstadt over Berlusconi (and not only because of the ideas and policies both have advocated in the past )

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Aeson
The question is if you think "intellectuals" can be good no 1's or not. ("Intellectuals" in quotes to denote how the term is applied to those who appear intelligent and may use big words.)

I personally don't think it's a negative. And given how it's commonly applied, actually a positive. Since it's applied to people who sound intelligent. Though being intelligent, or speaking intelligently, are not guarantees of leadership either. Just it's better than being someone who can't express themselves intelligently.

Yeah, that's it.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Traianvs
Hmm, if Obama were to decide not to back up India or South Korea in some hypothetical situation, you would call it a lack of leadership?

Let me ask you this:

President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis. Was it an act of leadership that had anything to do with rational-scientific thinking?

Why is having leadership related yo your own preferences?

I never said what the hypotheticl situation would be, nor what would 'backing up' mean, so anything your're implying is in your mind alone.

By the way don't worry. Obama's as pro-Israel as any politician in the US

a) that's not true.
b) i made a whole deal of effort to show that the US has a ton of other allies that rely on it's ability to lead, and project authority.

In 1999 Israel and Palestine would have probably gained more from a less intellectual president but a more persistent and decisive one that would have pressed them enough to reach an agreement.
Even if it would come off as "anti-israeli".

I never said they weren't intelligent. Actually I'm not sure they'd wipe the floor with me . If it were about Iraq and so on, I disagree. They have overlooked so many things, neglected so much... [/quote]
But they had tons of rational thinking based on intellectual theories. It happenned that many of them were wrong.

Which brings me home to my point: many much less intellectual people, who only relied on folksy common sense had easily realised that if you don't have enough planning for after the war, it's a problem.


[quote]I think guys like Wolfowitz, despite their enormous intellect, didn't have enough knowledge to see what lied ahead in Iraq. But that's another discussion

The problem is that no one has enough knowledge in all issues a president can face.

And sometimes, big intellectuals like Wolfowitz forget things than an average joe can tell you right away.

You know: never wage a war on russia in the winter. don't disband the entire structure of iraqi government before you have something in place.

or even: don't attack iraq. don't abandon afghanistan.

those are all common sense decisions, that intellectuals can miss just as easily.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Traianvs
Condi's pretty average no? She hasn't pulled off anything important herself afaik. That may prove your point that intellectuals shouldn't be put in high places, but well firstly she belongs to the Bush group, and that group of people has lost all credibility in the world. Secondly she hasn't got too much of the other leadership qualities. Powell had a lot more of those in retrospect (at least... until he totally screwed up in UNSC with his presentation of the Iraqi WMD facilities )

well here your political views come into play.
I don't think the war in Iraq was a terrible decision. I think it was poorly planned and the aftermath was very poorly executed. Here the administration dropped the ball and things went sour, and even worse.

Had there been better planning, it would have saved the middle east.

Look at the events that followed the liberation of Iraq:
- Lybia admitted its nuclear program
- Iran froze their nuclear program
- Syria was kicked out of Lebanon

all good things that were affected by the US projection of strength.

It's only later when the administration started to fail (due to poor planning, by many intellectuals in state dept. and in the army) that the different sides reacted and began taking advantage of the failure. So now it looks worse.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Let me ask you this:

President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis. Was it an act of leadership that had anything to do with rational-scientific thinking?

It was luck more than anything else. Some things are out of your hands, that's only human.

I never said what the hypotheticl situation would be, nor what would 'backing up' mean, so anything your're implying is in your mind alone.

I mean: You make it seem as if Obama doesn't support an ally in a particular situation it's a lack of leadership. If Tony Blair had declined to help Bush in Iraq, would Blair lack leadership?

Why do you think being intellectual entails lacking the ability to take bold decisions.

a) that's not true.

Look, the US will stay pro-Israel no matter what. Clinton favours Israel even more than the rest, or maybe Obama favours Israel a bit less. I don't know the details, but it's not important: Israel is the best ally the US have there so he'll back it up for sure.

If you think not, then explain please.

But they had tons of rational thinking based on intellectual theories. It happenned that many of them were wrong.

Nah. They were just stupid. Intellectualism has nothing to do with it. You blame the failure on their intellectualism, while it was their ignorance that ****ed em. Their lack of rational scientific thinking if you will

[MrFun]

Next idea they come up with is that you hate America if you pursue higher education.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Ah yes, the Hruska defense. Wiki summarizes it nicely:

In defense against charges that [Nixon Supreme Court Nominee G. Harold] Carswell was "mediocre", U.S. Senator Roman Hruska (Republican, Nebraska) stated, "Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance?"

It shows up every few years, always out of the mouths of Republicans, and it's always repellent. And Palin, of course, is this years G. Harold Carswell.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

well here your political views come into play.
I don't think the war in Iraq was a terrible decision. I think it was poorly planned and the aftermath was very poorly executed. Here the administration dropped the ball and things went sour, and even worse.

Had there been better planning, it would have saved the middle east.

Look at the events that followed the liberation of Iraq:
- Lybia admitted its nuclear program
- Iran froze their nuclear program
- Syria was kicked out of Lebanon

all good things that were affected by the US projection of strength.

It's only later when the administration started to fail (due to poor planning, by many intellectuals in state dept. and in the army) that the different sides reacted and began taking advantage of the failure. So now it looks worse.

It was bad from the beginning on. Like I said with the plunderings in Bagdad and other places. Like the lack of confidence in the US after they abandonded the shi'ites after the first Gulf War (which they had not forgotten). A lack of planning yeah, but more a lack of knowledge of the region. They had little or no empathy for the people there.

Youths told journalists in all honesty that they would fight the US after Saddam would be gone (if the Americans got kicked out, they would get Saddam back - obviously not their preference either)... From the start succes was not imminent.


Anyway that's another discussion that we'll not resolve any time soon I think. You're into high politics, while I also like to include low politics

[Patroklos]

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

[Aeson]

Naw, you can be arrogant... you just have to be arrogant the "right" way.

[Sirotnikov]

I mean: You make it seem as if Obama doesn't support an ally in a particular situation it's a lack of leadership. If Tony Blair had declined to help Bush in Iraq, would Blair lack leadership?

Why do you think being intellectual entails lacking the ability to take bold decisions.

I don't.

I merely try to reduce the weight of intellectualism by contrast with traits much more important in a leader.

Look, the US will stay pro-Israel no matter what. Clinton favours Israel even more than the rest, or maybe Obama favours Israel a bit less. I don't know the details, but it's not important: Israel is the best ally the US have there so he'll back it up for sure.

If you think not, then explain please.

it would be a horrible thread jack.

Nah. They were just stupid. Intellectualism has nothing to do with it. You blame the failure on their intellectualism, while it was their ignorance that ****ed em. Their lack of rational scientific thinking if you will

Saying they're stupid is a reduction of the problem.

I don't think they were stupid. Infact I think that most of them would easily fit the definition of "intellectual" made in the O.P. (esp. in contrast to "average joe").

Many of them had background in international relations and political science, and had dealt with middle east issues for a long time in think tanks and policy bodies.

In the context of the O.P., they are certainly more similar to Biden, than to Mrs. Palin.

And yet they failed, and made bad decisions and gave bad recommendations.

I suspect that intellect can't save you from a lapse in judgement, or from stupid mistakes. Glaring mistakes are often much easier to make.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Traianvs
It was bad from the beginning on. Like I said with the plunderings in Bagdad and other places.

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

Like the lack of confidence in the US after they abandonded the shi'ites after the first Gulf War (which they had not forgotten). A lack of planning yeah, but more a lack of knowledge of the region. They had little or no empathy for the people there.

That has very little to do with intellectualism, and alot more with all the points I made before.

The lack of confidence in the US stemmed from abandoning allies (remember allies are important in my perception of leader qualities).

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

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

Youths told journalists in all honesty that they would fight the US after Saddam would be gone (if the Americans got kicked out, they would get Saddam back - obviously not their preference either)... From the start succes was not imminent.

Niether was failure.

It was up to the US to do everything correct. They screwed up. They're now doing stuff they should have done long time ago.

You're into high politics, while I also like to include low politics

que?