When Did Education and Intellect Become Political Negatives?

This post is not intended to criticize Sarah Palin and John McCain, nor is it meant to praise Barack Obama. Rather, it aims to raise one key question: since when did the American people forget the importance of pragmatic intellectualism and education?

The forefathers of the United States were children of religious bigotry and persecution, and, as a result, fled Britain to create a new approach to life and government. They valued intellect and education. In fact, they outlined the principles of the United States' democracy to establish intellectual freedom from the Church.

The Constitution separated the ideologies and values of the Church from the State, and leaders of the State were thus educated in matters pertaining to the State. These leaders proved themselves time after time with their pragmatic intellectual capacities. The public trusted them as well, seeing intellectuals as the authorities of their studied subject matters.

Unfortunately, we are now living in a different world. No longer does the public want a leader with an education or experience. The public wants the beer-drinking buddy from Texas or the beauty queen from Alaska. Cover photos on US Weekly and People Magazine are now the new authoritative credentials -- so much so that they carry more clout than Harvard Law degrees and Constitutional Law professorships.

But right now, more than ever, we need a dynamic leader with the intellectual capacity to tackle the issues at hand. We need a leader who can solve economic problems, as well as deal with nuclear threats. We need a leader who can approach problems with reason and logic. Not so long ago, we had such leaders. And better yet, the public actually admired them for being masters of their craft. Nowadays it seems that many Americans equate education and intellectual capacity with snobbery and arrogance.

Education and experience in leadership, though, determine capacity for leadership. Somebody lacking the necessary education and experience simply will not have the capacity to successfully lead. We wouldn't want someone without cooking experience to cook for us, so why would we want someone without political or foreign policy experience to govern us?

Calling oneself a hero after making mistakes shouldn't earn public trust. And certainly, selecting a person as a running mate solely because she's a woman -- and therefore appeals to a segment of potential voters -- doesn't make you right. Palin is unqualified on her record to be the president of the United States, plain and simple

Either we're a country that believes race and gender are the key issues in 2008, or we're going to elect the most suitable people we can find. Pragmatism doesn't mean we elect an unqualified candidate who claims that two years as governor of Alaska qualifies her to be president. Palin has no foreign policy experience whatsoever. Alaska's proximity to Russia doesn't count. How about her views on unprotected sex? If we're going to deal with morality and values, then we need to be honest. There's something hypocritical about Palin telling our children to abstain altogether, or to at the very least have protected sex, when she apparently forgets to teach her own children to do the same. We can't allow our leaders to play the old "do as I say, not as I do" game.

Why have we resorted to nominating pretty faces on People Magazine as suitable candidates to run our nation? Is it going to take the National Enquirer covering stories about Palin's child, childhood, six colleges, etc. to really wake us up from this bad dream?

Comments

[lifeinfullcolor]

Finally someone is opening the debate on what qualifies a person to lead the free world, so to say. We have standards in place for surgeons, doctors, nurses, lawyers, electricians and plumbers, but all it takes to be a politician is a story and money behind you. You can't play professional sports unless you have the ability, what ability do we look for in our leaders? I'd like our country to have a discussion on what qualities it takes to be a leader? How do children learn, by being intellectually curious, by asking the questions, why? If no one ever asked why, where would we be, I look for someone with the ability to ask why. I've often said, children grow up and retain their selfish qualities or their childlike qualities, the childlike qualities are what have propelled mankind, those are the qualities that ask why!

[MamaBird62]

Interesting point, but what would those qualifications be? We have only two for President, age and citizenship. That is the case with nearly every elected type of position in the US, from the 6th grade class president on up. The fact that we don't put restrictions on who can run for office is part of what makes us a free and open democracy. Leadership is in the mind of the led.

[hoopesaz]

"since when did the American people forget the importance of pragmatic intellectualism and education?"

I think it happened when the self proclaimed intellectuals on the left started assuming that those on the right only believe what they do and vote the way they do because they are too stupid to see how wrong they are. There is a barrier between the parties constructed of anger and cynicism that far outweighs the merits of the issues. It's horribly unfortunate, but true.

I'm a republican leaning towards Obama/Biden. Regardless, I'll support whoever wins so long as they work to solve problems on behalf of the people and quit posturing and bickering along party lines.

[kellysmalltowngirl]

Yes, that's part of it. Disrespect for different views on both sides is a HUGE problem. And many voters, on both sides, are vulnerable to emotional arguments.

I like John McCain personally, I've read his books, seen him on the Daily Show. I saw Gov. Palin's speech, it gave me chills, she seemed like the total package.

I won't vote for them because I disagree on almost every issue. And frankly, the evangelical business scares the bejeesus out of me.

[rjmiller]

Anti-intel­lectualism is basic part of modern American culture. How many movies/tv shows involve a group of people (which always includes a scientist and a soldier/cop) trying to solve a problem? The scientist is always portrayed as a bumbling idiot that magically knows a ton about one subject but can't deal with the rest of the world while the soldier/cop always takes charge, saves the day and gets the girl.

America hates smart people and loves action.

[deecee22]

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION is under assault , One (C) student disrespect it ("its just a damn piece of paper") who are you going to call to save it? two (C) students or two CONSTITUTIONAL lawyers?

[Pat-GA]

Great article and thanks for the post. It is truly amazing to see the strong dislike for intellect and intelligence. It's truly amazing. The rest of the world appreciates these characteristics in their leaders and even expects them. However, a large portion of the American electorate has strong disdain for these characteristics. If I hadn't witnessed a similar disdain for Kerry, I would say it's racism. But, with Obama, racism is heightened by this basic disdane for intellect. So, in his case, he's double offensive, in that he's intelligent and black - at least this is the case with a large portion of the American electorate. It's truly amazing to witness...

History tells us that all civilizations crumble from within...'­those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it..."

But there is hope in the future....­the youth understand as they will bear the full brunt of the decisions made in this election..­..

[TrevorAlan]

Sorry, I have to say one more thing.

While anti-intte­lectualism bugs me, sometimes its not the major piece of the puzzle. I think more important is apparent strenght-- a lot of voters want a candidate sure of their beliefs, decicive even at the cost of a little pure intelligence.

That DOESN'T have to be the opposite of intellectualism. Too often Dems are smart wafflers, but why can't we put forward someone smart who shows us his end beliefs in a strong fashion and doesn't show his whole decision making process in public. Yes be open to change but come out swinging and taking no prisoners with your current policies.

People want a SMART leader, they just don't want their university professor.

[kathy001]

Keeping the masses ignorant is one of the best ways to control them. Evangelicals understand this and do their best to foster a climate of ignorance. And because the Evangelicals seem to have taken over the Republican party, fostering ignorance has become a favorite tool of the GOP. And it's working. It's time to start pointing this out. And it's time to start challenging the masses over their lack of intellectual growth. Great article!

[jmpurser]

Intellect and education became negatives in campaigns when we as Americans realized we were mostly stupid and ignorant and we really really liked it that way. Why do you ask?

[TrevorAlan]

I've heard that the egghead intellectual vs. the war hero hurt the Democrats in the Eisenhower vs. Stevenson election

BUT

it is a terrible slander against Ike's intelligence to compare him to McCain. The guy may have been the start of mispronouncing "nucular", but you don't organize the liberation of Europe on GW Bush level intellect or McCain anger mismanagement.

If only loosing meant we'd still get an upright, capable politician like Eisenhower I wouldn't be so scared. Why the hell can't the GOP find someone like that in their party anymore?

[Beranek]

Because there aren't any. And if there are, their voices are drowned out by the din of anti-intel­lectualism fervor (think Delay & Company).

[JD08]

(Also think Limbaugh and Hannity). Truly fightening.

[hoopesaz]

Ah, they could Romney was just such an individual, but he can't get past the smell test with a critical public that is more concerned with appearance than with progress. He has a track record and is a smart, proven, capable leader. Unfortunately he changed some of his previous positions in an attempt to find mass appeal with a populace that has no tolerance for someone with a different opinion.

He just isn't electable in a republican party so heavily influenced by the evangelical right...th­e very group that demands tolerance and respect for it's beliefs, but finds no reason to extend that tolerance and respect to other religious beliefs. I suppose if Romney would renounce his mormon faith and become a baptist then he could win.

[Nolana]

Does anyone else remember this passage from Dickens? (I will abridge the passage for length.)

"They were a boy and a girl. Yellow, meager, ragged, scowling, wolfish... Where angels might have sat enthroned, devils lurked, and glared out menacing.

"Scrooge started back, appalled. 'Spirit! Are they yours?'

"'They are man's,' said the Spirit... 'This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware of them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased. Deny it!' cried the Spirit, stretching out its hand toward the city. 'Slander those who tell it ye! Admit it for your facetious purposes, and make it worse! And bide the end!'

*sigh* We're biding the end, all right.

[nyobserver]

I don't know that referencing solely legal expertise is a good way to win over supporters to the Democrat ticket. Lawyers are professionally trained to be able to argue the same issue from opposite sides. Kinda like some politicians that way...? I like to forget that certain politicians have law degrees myself. Gives them much more credibility in my opinion.

[doug108]

The fact that we have a ruling class made up almost entirely of lawyers is a huge problem for this country. You can't have a functioning democracy when the truth is secondary to the number of people you can convince to accept your point of view.

[mgloraine]

Anti-intel­lectualism was the hallmark of the Reagan crowd. It had to be, because he was clearly the stupidest person ever to seek the office up to that time. He was regaled by the religious fanatics who rallied to the cause of stupidity with the title of "the Great Communicator", despite the fact that he was nearly incoherent and already deep in the throes of Alzheimer's.

It was the Reaganites who equated brainlessness with patriotism. Asking questions about the shady motives and methods of the snoozing Reagan's scheming henchmen or his religionist human rights reversal campaign would get you on the enemies list. They labelled every crooked scam "Patriot" this or "Freedom" that, and the big group of stupid Americans who watched Falwell, Bakker, and the rest of the phony Bible thumpers on the tube did what their masters told them to: they voted the idiot ticket...t­wice!!

It was another big victory for stupid America when G.W. Bush came on the scene because he was just like them: anything he doesn't understand, he derides or pretends it doesn't exist. Like evolution, or global warming, or economics, or diplomacy, or anything beyond the scope of his religionist fantasy world. Really stupid people want pat answers they don't have to think about, and that's what the Republican Party since the Reagan Dark Age has specialized in. Hence the seeming popularity of Sarah Palin: no thinking required, all complex topics either avoided or boiled down to a slogan or stupid joke.

[arnray]

When Palin says she doesn't believe in man made climate change; someone please ask her what studies she has read on the subject. Then play a soundtrack of crickets in the background to cover her silence.

[Gidster]

The Founding Fathers wanted intellectual freedom from the church. This is a fact supported by their own writings and passages in the Constitution itself.
Evangelicals have twisted this into The Founders wanted Intellectual freedom FOR the Church.
They are teaching and preaching this rubbish to their congregations who are teaching it to their children.
Education becomes subjective. If fact does not fit with ideology, just change the fact.

[RobinSeattle]

Richard, you need to read Richard Hofstadter's classic book, "Anti-inte­llectualis­m in American Life."
http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170

And if you haven't yet read it, also check out Erick Fromm's "Escape from Freedom"
http://www.amazon.com/Escape-Freedom-Erich-Fromm/dp/0805031499

Fromm's book is centered around the psychology of how Nazism happened in Germany. Good reading for understanding the conservative mind.

[MSiddique]

Like all unpleasant truth, the anti-education bias reflected in the deep-seated anti-intel­lectualism of the American culture, its fascination with the ‘ordinary folks’, is an anathema for the chattering class. Historian Richard Hofstadter wrote about it in his mostly forgotten 1963 study, Anti-Intel­lectualism in American Life; it should be a required reading for all freshmen at universities. Militantly promoted by ill-educated evangelicals, it has been a favorite tool of conservative branch that lean toward fascism. In no other culture bright, well educated people are held in such disdain. Even many in the left in contradiction to the history and teachings of the philosophers of progressive ideologies, invoke the same evangelical hatred of the educated in falls attempt at glorification of working class virtues. The article “5 Myths About Those Civic-Minded, Deeply Informed Voters” by Rick Shenkman in the 9/7/08 Washington Post should give some idea why ignorance is worshiped, and conniving and criminally minded puppeteers such as Karl Rove is lionized as geniuses by many, including the media. No wonder, even in the 21st century, a significant portion of the people would not vote for an educated, enlightened, thinking Black Man but would do so in a heart bit for a loud-mouth, corrupt, ultra-conservative mediocre Governor of a state that has only a few people more than the 67 square miles city of the District of Columbia!