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
I am unconvinced that Obama is actually the "smarter" candidate. He can talk a glorious circle, but at the end of his ramblings, he often has either contradicted himself, or not made a point. --His supporters call the unfocused blather "nuanced".
It is indeed a fine quality to be able to make a point succinctly. It's also a very attractive quality for an executive to hold.
The American people pick up on this "nuance". They aren't as stupid as you paint them.
The Republicans are in favor of standardized testing, right? How about an objective test:
John McCain graduated near the bottom of his class at the naval academy.
Sarah Palin has not released her grades, but a BS in communications journalism cobbled together with credits from five or six different schools does not inspire confidence.
Barack Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School.
Joe Biden received a law degree from Syracuse University.
I think a magna cum laude law degree from Harvard Law School is pretty good proof that Obama is the smartest candidate.
He also wrote two books ( by himself, without a ghostwriter like McCain), an accomplishment derided by Sarah Palin. Of course, burning books is easier than writing them
Maybe you just aren't smart enough to follow Obama's arguments.
Thank you, thank you for stating something so obvious that it leaves me with a sinking feeling of incredulity and depression. I have not heard ONE analyst or commentator discuss the educational differences between the candidates. I have not heard ONE comment on television about the outstanding educational credentials of Barack Obama. Its incomprehensible, this lack of comment on the educational credentials of the Republican candidates, particularly Palin. Just how twisted has the judgment of American voters become?
Also, how about the obvious joke? I actually thought of this one and since I'm not good at coming up with jokes, certainly many others have thought of it but why is no one using it:
Q. What's the difference between a George Bush and a Sarah Palin? A. Lipstick.
i second this emotion.
Rudy Guliani was the only one on the republican side with a decent resume in educational terms (NYU law school) , but that falls waaaaay short of Barack's degree from columbia, and then harvard law school, and then the professorship at the university of chicago law school, that is unbeatable.
"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."
We've allowed religious zealots to change that. Religious leaders like James Dobson are now in control of our government. Until we deal with that problem we will continue down the road to tyranny.
Americans are a strange lot. Many of them have no qualms electing a president who graduated 864th in a class of 869, but would never go to a dentist with the same academic record.
Meanwhile, the British are inverted in those views.
I am really depressed! I believe what you have said is true. We do not seem to value excellence.
The rest of the world does not understand us either. I get emails from friends in other countries asking if "America is going to fall for this stuff?"...guess we are falling..
We value celebrity and have short attention spans; best for viewing pictures and short reads.
I have no idea what the average voter wants. They don't seem to want Obama and grasp at any reason to go in another direction. Guess they have loved the last eight years.
I have heard women say they think Sarah Palin is"fun"...go figure?
No matter how bad it gets for them economically I think they are getting what they want; I really don't blame MSM; if the audience wanted something more "meaty" they would get it...the MSM is only giving them what the want.
Tone is everything.
People smarter than Mr. Obama have done really dumb things before.
You ain't dat smart.
In the last second an infinite number of things just happened.
You may have missed something.
"As a people, we admire physical superiority, and nobody expects star athletes to scale down their performances to the common public level; but in feats of mental or cultural superiority, we tend to resent the level of achievement and condemn as "highbrow" the same proficiency we applaud on the playing field as "awesome." ~ Sidney J. Harris
You're trying to explain away why people don't like Obama/do like Palin by saying it's the people's problem.
The people don't love ignorance and hate intelligence.
Having intelligence isn't Obama's problem. Thinking he has more intelligence than everyone else is.
"Elitism" does not come from the prestigious name on your degree. Elitism comes from what the prestigious name on your degree does to your personality.
It's a state of mind, not a state of being.
So, you're saying he's just a snob?
I support Obama but I agree with you a bit on this point. Kerry in particular talked down to people, not intentionally though. Somehow you have to figure out how to make people feel smart when you talk to them....I live in a very academic area of the country and have found that actually the most intelligent people are able to figure out how to make those around them feel "smart" as well. They have a certain respect for a persons innate intellect, or common sense.
If McCain wins we could have a real life Forest Gump as vice prez.
Well just consider the world laughs at us for electing W, we don't appear that savvy.
And this is why China and Russia will be rising stars in world influence.
One of the most succesful Republican strategies has been to undermine entire disciplines of study, starting with the ones that involve dealing with the intangable. Now, as we can see, they're going after physical sciences as well, with their 'faith.'
This is a key strategy for them, as many people with higher educations tend to wind up being more inclined towards progressivism. Undermining the authority that these people often can speak from, and the respect others hold their studies in is a good way to level the playing field for the Republicans. By hijacking control of education, they can further expand this agenda by encouraging the next generations to continue to view studying 'useless' subjects like history, philosophy, political science, literature, art and so forth as pointless, and thus gain a greater toehold over the intellectual life of the United States. Then they go after the physical sciences when they disagree with their ideology.
In this country, there is little respect for brainpower anymore. Feelings are more important, opinions are all considered equal, regardless of how uninformed. That sounds good on the surface, but it means that people hold the sorts of degrees that Barack Obama holds with very little respect and ask 'well dang, what has he done?' That levels the playing field for people like Bush and Palin.
It's hardly a new phenomenon. Lots of extremist movements start by taking control of education, and the first step in that is eliminating the influence of unsanctioned intellectuals.
"When Did Education and Intellect Become Political Negatives?"
I think it's pretty much always been that way but the advent of radio and then television served to amplify it.
It's the "they think they are better then we are" syndrome.
Michael, this is a great article. I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Instead of inspiring admiration, intellect and ivy league education make us sneer. We are becoming a nation of delusional morons. We are pleased as punch with ourselves and don't see where a degree from Columbia is any different than one from Podunk Community College. Superiority and excellence make us uncomfortable. It's just downright un-american.
A Harvard Law Degree is not the litmus test for a good leader. I am so sick of lawyers in this country and in my humble opinion they are directly responsible for our absolutely "plugged" legal system. Billable hours baby...that is all that counts. Right or wrong...doesn't matter, everyone is entitled to legal counsel. What a crock. Money buys justice in this country and that is one of our biggest problems. The last joker I want in power is a lawyer. Of course...I must be an uneducated idiot to express that on this web site.
And I know lawyers who have, conscientiously, accepted a notable loss of potential
earning ability to work with the poor and dispossessed. And who's "plugging" the
legal system? How much of the backup is due to corporate lawsuits. Just asking.
Thank you for writing this post--for having the courage to name the thing that really underlies the nightmare that is the 2008 presidential election. (Another blogger on HuffPo called it smart versus dumb; that works well, too.) There has always been a current of anti-intellectualism in American culture, but respect for the educated and a desire for education thrived there, too. As an educator, I find the GOP's calculated devaluing of intellect, thoughtfulness, wisdom, credentials, and experience deeply troubling. When people call Palin 'smart,' what do they really mean? The word, even in academe, has come to mean edgy and sharp--not intellectual or thoughtful or well-rounded. It's what 'pundits' are I suppose--quick on the draw. They win when their opponents cannot supply instant, clever, or nasty rebuttals. But that's not what we need at this dangerous moment in history. We've had enough, I should think, of leaders who follow their gut (for most this is nothing more than short-term self-interest), who disparage reading and thinking, and who appeal to base instinct instead of the best self.
heck this bunch is going to make Bush look good (remember his looking in Putin's eyes, I always felt a little strange about that)....
These people believe in exorcism (for gays), creationism and abstinence.... or back to Salem for witch trials. It would be funny if it was not true...
Go ahead Vote for Minnie Me McCain...and Pork Barrel Palin....
Very well said-- and, alas, too true. The media has played a role in this as well, looking for that quick sound bite at the expense of anything 'complicated.' Visuality has taken on more importance as well. I recall fondly the days when our political leaders quoted Aeschylus and Shakespeare, and invited poets to their inaugurals. We only need to see how close this election is to measure how far we've fallen from that.
"Intellectuals", "Harvard degree", and accolades of this nature may make moms and dads proud, but the ordinary American working stiff sees them as badges of superiority. You know, "superiority" as in "arrogance", "elitism", and being somehow better than "the great unwashed", i.e., the rest of us with degrees from mere second-rate public universities, or workers who struggled through the ranks to reach achievement.
Think about this my friend, and please respond... While I quaff another beer with fellow colleagues after another dreary day of work struggling to keep our heads above water.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
