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

[wearyvoter]

Ever read the Ray Bradbury short story, "The Sound of Thunder"? My question during the past few election cycles has been "Who stepped on the butterfly?"

[TenThings]

Agree. Good Article.

When did the American people forget the importance of pragmatic intellectualism and education?
When modern day Republicans cared more about winning elections, and grew to show pure contempt and resentment for Bill Clinton. Clinton rose up from his humble beginnings to go the to best schools. Very much like Obama, who rose up from his humble beginnings to educate his intellect and put himself through the best schools but still plays basketball. Ironically, President Bush was not really a drinking buddy of the common man, but a Ivy League, wealthy, educated blue blood whose father was Vice President. So was Franklin Roosevelt, but he never pretended to want to have a beer with you. And those that want to equate Palin with folsky Harry Truman couldn't be more far off, at least Truman who rose from humble beginnings, was and intellect: a county judge in Missouri and eventually a United States Senator before being selected as Vice President. Truman knew the law and had education and hated popularity contest.

[LanceBresee]

Harvard, Yale, Princeton .... these schools cost money.
Asserting that a Harvard graduate is better than a graduate of a land-grant school, who may have had the grades and test scores to get into Harvard but lacked the money,
will be seen as suggesting that the rich are better than the common man. This will not play in Appalachia.

True of False, that's how it reads, and you'll have to respond to that perception.

Disclaimer: Graduated from a Land-Grant school.

[viewfromuphere]

to me the thrust of this post is not the particular college but that glossy photo spreads and a folksy manner is more important than intelligence and education when is called to the highest office in the US and in the world.

I suspect Harvard is mentioned because that's where Obama was educated.

[camb94]

Your comment is well taken, but I think that you have missed something -- Annapolis is as elitist (if not more) than any of the other schools. Bush is a Yalie and a prep school boy. It isn't that the masses aren't willing to vote for privileged sons who go to elite colleges, it is that the people would rather elect someone who is anti-intellectual. Nobody is suggesting that there is even necessarily a difference between the two types of schools (disclaimer: I've done both types of schools and the educational opportunities may have been greater at the land grant school). What is sad is that when Bush ran for President it was as an anti-intellectual. He was PROUD of his standing in his class. The fact that there are working class people who manage to go to top level schools is something that America should be proud of. Instead, the hard workers who manage to get through these hurdles are insulted as being elitist.

[gotborked]

...perhaps because his standing in his class was higher than Kerry's?

[davism97]

Amen brother you just brought up an issue that I've been thinking about for several years now. I think it would be a sound policy to require ALL presidential and vice presidential candidates to demonstrate a mastery of knowledge in constitutional law for instance (through a written thesis or test if anything). Being elected to our nation's highest office shouldn't be based simply on a popularity contest or who has the most rich friends. They should have to step up and demonstrate their skills first hand just like any other job interview.

[LAR1969]

Double Amen. This is the issue that enrages me most (no hyperbole there).

[lbcny]

Michael, you are absolutely correct in everything you say.
The problem is and has been the "corporate" media or MSM
with their corporate agendas. This is the lie, rinse, repeat,
brainwashing machine. Unfortunately, many people find it
just too difficult to seek out the truth so it is much easier
just to watch the entertainment news. Don't people know about fascism?
What ever happened to the Red Brigade anyway?
Why can't most people see that our Democracy has been hijacked?
Why are so few people doing anything about it?
People are feeling powerless! Why bother!
I am one of those boomers who fondly remembers what it means to question
the "man" and protest, riot and try to do whatever else is needed to get our
voices heard. I am so disappointed in my generation who seem complacent and
lazy.
I guess we'll all just wait for the truth to be told in The National Enquirer.

[sonshine]

If we don't stop the notion that we are all equally prepared to be president now, this country will continue to slip backward toward the stone age.

[rebelrebel]

The US has always had a streak of anti-intellectualism. "Smarty-pants" has always been a codeword to focus resentment of " liberal elites." When Charles Van Doren became a star on the quiz show "21" (as dramatized in the movie "Quiz Show") being smart was suddenly sexy. Then Van Doren was exposed as a fraud.

Later, when the Russians launched Sputnik, there was a national panic that we were falling behind the Soviets in math and science. Suddenly, again, it was important to be brainy. But that too passed.

Then, in 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected President. Hostile to education, Reagan made stupidity cool. Like George Wallace, he weren't no pointy-headed intellectual. He was all "straight talk" and "Just plain folks." George Bush upped the ante, as he is even stupider than Reagan.

The glorification of stupidity is, for conservatives, a backlash against the perceived liberal dominance of Ivy League universities. Ever since the anti-Ivy League bile of William F. Buckley was mainstreamed by Doofus Reagan, reactionary Americans are more suspicioius than ever of someone who"s "too smart for their britches." This also ties in neatly with the idea that science is not be trusted and that religion should be relied on in its place.

It's worth noting that when Pol Pot took over Cambodia the first people to be packed off to the camps were intellectuals.

[imfedup]

Sorry. That should be the majority IS liberal. My bad.

[imfedup]

I couldn't agree more. Why do you think the majority of faculty in higher education are liberal?

[pbwebb]

Right you are Mike,

A long time ago you were my dad's agent and lived above our garage. You were always a man with a big brain and determination. I was raised to think each generation wants better for their children. I am completely disheartened that the republicans have some how decided being educated somehow makes one an elitist and being traveled also makes some one too fancy to relate to most Americans.

This is a presidential election! We should want the very best, the most well spoken and thoughtful leaders as our heads of state. One would think after 8 ruinous years of republican rule every one would want to vote democratic. We can always vote again in 4 years if things aren't a lot better. I am betting that Obama will bring us renewed respect in the world and be the strongest voice for Americans .

[grendl]

In answer to your question, we have become the willing slaves of the main stream media.

They have crafted the political narrative that is this election. Not reacted to it, created it. When someone gets too far in front, it's time to target them and tear them down. Because close horseraces make for better ratings, and steal the public's attention span from other diversions.

Politics has become strictly entertainment, bloodsport for the public. And watching the carnage, most don't want to have to actually read the views of the participants in the octagon, because that takes thinking and work. And we're not about that.

We're about the mud slinging, the insult, the tearing down Simon Cowel style. Laughing and mocking the hopeful and decent, spitting on the tenets our forefathers laid out as the foundation to this democracy. Pissing on the Constitution and quaking in fear of the religious right, ignoring the separation of church and state ensured by that constitution.

Blame television for making us the brain dead zombies that we are, and the corporate dark overlords who sculpt what we see and hear.

[Charles Kozierok - Huffpost Blogger]

Good article, Michael. And yes, it's very frustrating. It's not just that Americans don't seem to care about these issues any more -- it is that the Republican party actively tries to get people to vote on the basis of "who they'd rather have a beer with". They appeal to the narcissism of people who want to think that "anyone can be president".

You hit the nail on the head in that they try to make positives into negatives; I call this "smart guilt". The idea is to make smart people feel like they have something to be ashamed of, to guilt trip them into voting for lesser candidates, while simultaneously preaching that those who aren't as smart can "get even" by voting for mediocrity.

I wrote an article about this on my blog called "Smart Guilt", which you may find a valuable read: http://tinyurl.com/5z3nxg

[Agent420]

Knowing what I know about both candidates, I would rather have a beer with Barack Obama, and I would break 10 years of not drinking to do it.

[Godweiser]

Humorously: Would you rather have a beer with Joe Biden or Sarah Palin?

I get the feeling that beer with Sarah Palin with be like beer with Oliver Cromwell.

[WeNeedBetter]

Isn't it time that Americans demand that the candidates stick to a discussion of the issues instead of resorting to character assassination? As an outsider I want to point out that the rest of the world wonders how we are supposed to have any respect for the eventual winner after this campaign of vindictiveness. Aren't the country's problems big enough to warrant full time discussion? It is time to demand from the candidates that they grow up. It is the least they can do.