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?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Maybe the problem is that you believe we are electing leaders (and you are seriously deluded if you believe our constitutional founders saw it that way).
Congressionally, we elect representatives. One based on the physical area which we immediately reside in and the other two based on the state we live in.
As far as the executive branch goes, we are electing a magistrate, the chief magistrate of our country. They don’t need to solve economic problems (which is a good thing since they usually have no training in the subject. I don’t think it’s a heavy emphasis when obtaining Harvard Law degrees or Constitutional Law professorships.) It would suffice if they could just stop causing economic problems.
It still amazes that after eight years of George Bush (or 20 of the last 28 years under Republican presidents) progressives still want to put so much power in the hands of one man. Talk about voting against your own self interest.
People are anti intellectual because so many self proclaimed "intellectuals" have come up with the most idiotic, unworkable ideas in history.Great idea #1, Communism-the biggest orgasm in left wing memories, this thoroughly discredited dogma still soldiers on in N. Korea, Cuba, American universities and the "progressive" wing of the Democratic party. Here is a partial list of left wing intellectuals' greatest hits-- Reparations for the descendants of slaves, living wage laws, urban renewal fiascos, comparable worth legislation, busing for school desegregation, the Balkanization of higher education into women's, Afro-American, Latino and gay studies, affirmative action and the attempt to confer the legal protections of American citizens to enemy combatants captured in battle. Just because someone got a 36 on their ACT test or went to Harvard Law School does not mean that they have one ounce of common sense.
Small detail you left out...
Communism is alive and well in China.
And the way you republicans are racking up the national debt, they'll probably own us in a decade or two.
Communism has been supplanted by state sponsored capitalism in China. It is run by and for the benefit of the old guard communists who understand that communism is unworkable as an economic system. Don't try to defend the indefensible.
Probably when the academy was overtaken by soft social science, whose proponents became increasinly partisan. One of the downsides of promoting relativism is that its premised on the idea of subjective truth.
You can't run a country on subjectivity. There is neither value nor national interest in recognizing the 'point of view' of foreign or hostile powers.
A fundamental component of any military campaign is to know your enemy. Their strengths, weaknesses, motivations and cultural characteristics. To be ignorant of these factors is to invite defeat. That's from Sun-Tzu, not some social scientist.
Trying to negotiate a trade deal with a foreign government without bothering to understand their 'point of view' is guaranteed to fail. Hammering out a diplomatic agreement without recognizing the other parties' 'points of view' is not going to have good results.
What's not in our national interest is to approach foreign or hostile nations with arrogance and ignorance, assuming that they want what we want.
The issue is not one of understanding. The issue is one of empathy, which all too often blurs into sympathy. If we consider Japanese aggression in the 1930s, it is reasonable and rational to recognize that the Japanese had motives for what they are doing.
It was not reasonable or rational for people like WEB Du Bois, for example, to take the stated justifications of the Japanese at face value. Perhaps it is true that the Japanese felt pushed around by European powers. But it is MORE true that Japan wanted to do some pushing of its own, rather than be 'left to itself'.
As to your last point, I think that what you said actually applies more to intellectuals in positions of power than the reverse. It seems to me that the lesson of history teaches us that intellectuals tend to believe in a universality of human want. Woodrow Wilson was a particularly glaring example of that.
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
Anti-intellectualism has a long history in this country. Take a look at Richard Hoftstadter's book "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life" published in the early 1960's. It's still in print and more relevant than ever:
http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170
Being smart is one thing actually using that smarts in a real world situation is another.
Nothing against smart people but if they are so smart how come so many collage professors say the dumbest things? Because you need experience to actually do something with that smartness
You should first learn how to spell "college" before criticizing people with intelligence.
You've proved that you don't know what you're talking about.
I wouldn't imagine a professor of collage would necessarily be all that smart.
As a foreigner who has studied at an American university and admired the stimulating intellectual atmosphere at universities in your country , I am shocked by what is happening. Why do you insist on putting such lightweights at the top of your national leadership. In an extremely complicated and competitive world this is fallacy. And not only Americans , but people around the world pay a price.
The separation of church and state was one of the central principles set forth by your founding fathers and has been studied and admired the world over. But today religion has become a part of everyday political discourse . And there isnt even a debate about it in your country. The rest of the world just shakes its head in disbelief and despair.
If you haven't already seen it, rent the movie "Idiocracy." It is the future of our country and this election is proving it.
If you can formulate and speak a grammatical sentence you are an 'elitist' ( unless you have a southern accent).
If you say 'nuclear,' instead of 'nukular" you are an egghead.
A law degree from Harvard = arugula-eating, latte-sipping effete liberal.
A BS in 'communications journalism' from the University of Idaho = one of us. ( By the way, what were Palin's grades? Any professional job application that I have ever seen of asks the applicant to list their G.P.A.)
The country gets what it deserves...
The country isn't headed down the road depicted in Idiocracy, we're already there, but we just don't realize it yet.
Apparently, you're also an elitist if you have any interest in traveling outside the U.S.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.---Mencken
What concerns me most about Gov. Palin as VP candidate is her apparent lack of curiosity about the world outside of Alaska. She received her first passport as Gov. when she went to visit troops in Kuwait, a trip she was politically obligated to make. She also hasn't travelled much in the lower 48 outside of her duties as governor. A person who makes it to middle age without the ambition to travel outside the US has a pretty narrow mind. She certainly could have travelled, but chose not to. The US is a leader and partner in the world, I want my leader to have a clue about that world.
I have been asking the same thing as the author. Why is being intelligent and capable and a statesman so negative.
Look what having a dumb faux cowboy has done for this country. Look what a deadheaded beauty queen will do.
We can have American Idol running the country or we can finally do something right and realize that a well educated and intelligent person is what is needed to solve our problems.
As long as people see intelligence as a negative and press goes along with it and keeps promoting the stupid idea that you need a buddy in the white house, we will continue our downward slide to oblivion and our population will be too stupid to know what to do about it.
it is not something of pride to be an idiot.
You are all right! This started before the faux cowboy rode across our horizons. Think about the anti-intellectual conservative rhetoric designed to keep the few in power. The whole idea of education was to produce an informed citezenry, or that is what Ben Franklin had in mind. But there are those who would resist such newfangled ideas. I think if we do have four more years of idiocy then the country deserves it out of its own collective lameness, but the earth doesn't deserve the global warming that will continue at breakneck speed if the McCain Palin ticket wins this election and neither do civilizians inadvertently killed by the Bush war machine.
Bill Clinton did not run as someone who graduated from Yale, he ran as a person people could relate to. He also did not come across as condescending. He won.
Bush, same strategy. He won.
I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying DNC, get a clue.
Barack Obama does not wear his degrees on his shoulder. He is a grassroots man who goes to the people and gets to know them.
McCain is running as a POW? Education was not important to him seeing that he graduated 894 out of 899 students.
We stress education in this country. However, when RNC wants to get the puppets to focus on something else, they make that item important and okay, even if in the past it was not okay. (i.e. unwed teen pregnancy is not good, until your vp pick has a unwed teen pregnant)
Education IS important.
Anti intellectualism. Another sign of fascist thinking influencing our social mores. And brought
to us by the republican party in conjunction with the party propaganda arm, the mainstream
media. It's unbelievable that we can have a vp candidate that believes in banning books! We've
come a long way, backwards. This isn't the America I loved as a youth. This is a country on the
verge social breakdown. Maybe it has something to do with the every man for himself philosophy
since the reagan coup d' etat.
Daniel W. Scott
Citizen/consumer
"It's unbelievable that we can have a vp candidate that believes in banning books!"
That statement is about as accurate as Obama being a muslim . . .
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-09-Palin-book-ban_N.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/09/politics/animal/main4430259.shtml
While there is no evidence regarding Palin banning specific books, the CBS article you cited DOES state:
"While the purported list is bogus, we do know that something happened with regards to Palin and at least a question about book banning.
Time reported last week, for example, that Palin asked the Wasilla librarian, Mary Ellen Baker, about the process for banning books. Baker was reportedly "aghast" at the question. Soon after taking office, Palin, according to a New York Times report, fired Baker, and news reports from the time indicate that Palin thought Baker hadn't done enough to give her "full support" to the mayor.
Palin reversed course on Baker's dismissal after a local outcry, and later said the discussions about banning books were "rhetorical."
I can understand why the McCain campaign is pushing back against a bogus list that's making the rounds. Deceptive claims are deceptive claims, no matter who the target is. But as long as McCain aides are talking about this issue, maybe they can answer a couple of additional questions, such as, "Why did Palin try to fire the librarian in the first place?" Or how about, "Why did Palin broach the subject of book-banning if she had no intention of trying to ban books?""
When? Long before either of us were born, for sure. American political figures have been running against conspicuous education for decades. Say the word "egghead" for me now, and channel Joe McCarthy or William Jennings Bryant.
It started with the Reagan Revolution and the Religious Right in the 80's. The Religious
Right was not satisfied with preaching morality from the pulpit, they wanted
to legistlate morality from the White House. And they got their wish in the
quintessential evangelical George Bush. The anti-intellectualism from the
Evangelicals is now America's zeitgeist. God help us!
By any chance are you too young to remember 1968, the Nixon "Southern Strategy", and George Wallace talking about "pointy-headed intellectuals"?
you are right. It began with Nixon and his us vs. them. And he made it known that being educated and smart was them and that was bad.
Ever since the republicans have been running on this and they want the people to be stupid so they cannot figure out that the republicans are ruining the country.
That's it in a nutshell! Any dictator knows you have to suppress intellectuals and ban books, while controlling the educationial system, to be effective. It's no wonder they're letting the schools go to hell, and want to control the Supreme Court.
If McCain gets to make the Supreme Court a totally far right entity, game over for democracy in this country. The religious zealots will seize control, and the rest of us will either have to leave the country, or endure suppression such as this nation has never known.
Just as it was in 1860, we stand to see whether this nation, as it was created to be, can long endure. That it might be brought down by a "hockey mom," rather than an outside threat such as communism, is irony on an epic scale.
my sister told me last week...great, the palins are salt of the earth just like me and you type folks. but she said she wants our president to be smarter than her. she wants him to be the smartest man (or woman, as the case may someday be) in whatever room he (she) happens to be in at the time.
We, as a nation, have been saying we "value education" and "want better schools" for many, many years. However, we don't really value education at all in our culture. I believe it is because we have become unable to admire or respect something we don't think we personally will achieve, or be a part of in some way. Star athletes are admired because we can, as fans, be part of it. We can go and root on "our team." The SAT doesn't have bleachers. People who aren't brainiacs have no way to be part of, or receive pride by association with the brainiacs. Instead, "my kid beat up your honor student" or "my doberman is smarter than your honor student" are the bumper stickers seen. Anyone can *beat up* an honor student - so that gets the identity, it gets the laugh, it becomes the cultural norm.
On this current political stage, having gone to Harvard and done well is "elitist." Palin is McCain's pitbull, beating up our honor student. And most everyone thinks that's cool. Actually, with her jowls, we should call her a mastiff instead.
Obama's success has come from him giving people *another* way to relate to him. The discussion needs to go back to those things. Right now, he's just another geek getting beat up in middle school.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
