Why do modern voters (even in Canada) dislike intellectuals?
There was a time in the democratic world, where some of the people at the very top of their party’s — people with the actual reins of power — were unabashed intellectuals.
Woodrow Wilson was a scholar and an academic. Winston Churchill was a soldier, but he was also a writer and a historian.
Many of our founding fathers were wonks and idea junkies.
Barack Obama can lay claim to some of this mantle. His Ivy League credentials and his widely-praised books were a comfort to his friends and a source of scorn to his critics.
But Obama’s surge to power in 2008 is looking more and more like an anomaly.
His cerebral, cautious approach to American politics has alienated many in his own party who prefer a more confrontational, bare-knuckled approach.
And this week, Canadian voters had a chance to vote for Michael Ignatieff, a former professor at Cambridge, Oxford and Harvard, to serve as their next prime minister.
Ignatieff is an accomplished writer, scholar, and human rights activist. He’s also handsome, charismatic, and reasonably talented on the stump.
None of that mattered. With Ignatieff as their standard-bearer, his Liberal Party suffered a devastating defeat and it now appears that Ignatieff himself lost his own seat in Parliament, a rare humiliation for a party leader.
I’ve scoured the Canadian press for some explanation about Ignatieff’s drubbing.
The rationales offered up are remarkably thin. He “failed to connect.” He called the elections “too soon.” He didn’t articulate a clear vision.
All that played a part, to be sure, and Ignatieff was also caught in some weird political cross currents, including the rise of a new center-left party, the NDP and the historic implosion of the Bloc Quebecois.
But I’m chocking this election up to the would-I-want-to-have-a-beer-with-him? question. Ignatieff joins the long list of philosopher-pol also-rans that stretches back from Gordon Brown to John Kerry to Nelson Rockefeller.
Men of ideas and character, they lacked something of the common touch. They seemed a little aloof.
It may well be, of course, that Michael Ignatieff wasn’t the man to lead Canada. Voters certainly saw it that way. The fact that someone has big ideas doesn’t mean they’re the right ideas, or the right ideas for the moment.
But it’s worth pondering what it means that our Western societies appear to have developed an aversion for thinkers and intellectuals. What does a democracy look like if the best and brightest need not apply?
Tags: politics
If you are just noticing that Brian, you are revealing your youth. Check out “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life” by Richard Hofstadter from your local library (if they haven’t sold in an ‘old book’ sale). It was published in 1966 and it wasn’t news then either.
Jim – First, I LOVE the idea that I’m revealing my youth. The interesting thing today is that it’s not just American Life. It’s the Canadians who kicked their intellectual down the stairs…
Brian
Over the years, I have had the opportunity to work with some very intelligent people. The ones who were successful as leaders, were the ones who drew others into the decision making. They developed as leaders because they helped make almost everyone around better at their jobs.
In contrast, they are those that strive for the title of “smartest guy in the room” and convey the attitude of “if I can’t understand this, there ain’t no way you idiots sitting around the table can”.
Maybe it’s the lack of the common touch. Maybe it’s their need to continue to remind us that they are intellectuals and we are not.
I think Bush pretty much nailed it. I can admire sheer intellect, but those truly brilliant people I’ve come in contact with tend to look down their nose at the lesser beings. It’s part of our culture though- we look up to the guy with the MBA from Havard or Yale and we scoff at the dunce that fixes our plumbing. But there’s the rub, the guy fixing your plumbing isn’t the one bundling bad loans into investments that require Federal bailouts and the MBA doesn’t have a clue what to do with a clogged toilet except to call the plumber.
I’ll stick with the plumbers and guys with poop on their boots thanks.
Smartness today is much different than in the past. There’s no way now for any one person to know everything.
There’s a big difference between appreciating someone’s expertise and reviling another’s elitism.
The problem might be in the choice of words. Smart – yes. intellectual – maybe.
Intellectual is mostly about theory. Smart is in use and application of yours or someone else’s intellect. To just have knowledge but not be certain of when and how to use it seems to be a problem for many who are dubbed or dub themselves as intellectual. To use a phrase – “The proof is in the pudding.”
Ultimately, most voters seem to want a leader who’s like themselves, who’s an ordinary guy. This doesn’t make a lot of sense to me for two reasons. First, running a country is a hard job that requires mastery of a lot of different dossiers. It seems incongruous to put someone who’s not only ordinary, but uncurious (and thus unprepared for new challenges), to do an EXCEPTIONALLY difficult job.
Second, the whole reason we have representative democracy, rather than direct democracy (or “mob rule” as the Founders derisively referred to it), is precisely because we don’t trust ourselves or don’t feel that we have mastery of enough important issues to make the decisions ourselves. As a result, we choose people to make these decisions on our behalf. If we’re going to choose representatives who are the same as us (or worse), rather than smarter and more curious, then why don’t we save a lot of money, drop representative democracy and institute a Swiss-style direct democracy?
However, I think the people’s mistrust of intellectuals is a bit understandable given that it was the “best and the brightest” who brought us Vietnam, Iraq, the economic collapse (thanks largely to that massive deregulation that intellectuals told us would be a panacea) and that massive reverse Robin Hood scheme known as the bailout. Intellectuals have too often acted in service of the economic elites. Unfortunately, anti-intellectuals (like today’s Palins and Becks for example) do exactly the same thing which make them much more effective trojan horses.
Brian asks a fair question: where do intellectuals fit (if at all) in the world of politics?
But in this particular situation, there’s a _lot_ more going on than where one candidate ranks in some IQ test.
Ignatieff took over a party weakened by a history of factional infighting and a string of previous losses. Low on money, organization and lacking a compelling platform to fire up voters, the Liberal Party may have simply picked the wrong time to try take Harper down. (Indeed, if voters are the ultimate judge, the Liberals may have also tackled that challenge under the wrong leader, which counts as another significant error.)
It’s true that observers continually noted a connection gap between average voters and Ignatieff (who plays the common touch card even though he is descended from Russian nobility, a hard act to pull off!)
Although by most reports Ignatieff campaigned very well and was generally both liked and respected by the press corps, many regular folks remained unsure of where Ignatieff fit in or what to make of him.
But then again, Harper has a similar problem, perhaps even more so! Harper’s warm and fuzzy quotient is almost undetectable, save for occasions that show him dressing in sweaters or displaying his musical ability. Year after year, Harper and the press seem equally committed to maintaining an atmosphere of mutual dislike.
And yet ….for all his own lack of ‘connection’….Harper won. And won. And won again. Though Harper ‘only’ holds a masters degree in economics, he’s no slouch in the intellect department either.
And that regular guy most Canadians would pick to share some beers, Jack Layton? He’s also a PhD holder, author and a former university professor.
Nope, in a field full of smart leaders, this still came down to hard, cold strategic smarts (Harper) and perhaps what might be called emotional intelligence (Layton).
Things that are hard to define, but which often serve politicians even better than pure intellect.
“But Obama’s surge to power in 2008 is looking more and more like an anomaly.”
Anomaly? Brian, his predecessor was clearly what you would call an “intellectual”. Certainly a bachelors degree from Yale and and MBA from Harvard would qualify you as coming from the “Ivy League”.
The voters have certainly embraced an “intellectual” for the past 3 presidential races.
Brian, I don’t think your premise here is accurate.
I agree; our last three Presidents; Clinton, Bush and Obama are all Ivy League products all with graduate degrees from Ivy League institutions.
So how are we defining intellectual is the question?
Now I do think that there is an undercurrent of anti-intellectualism in American Society right now that is very unhealthy particularly for our youth.
Paul – You’re suggesting that George Bush was an intellectual?
-Brian, NCPR
remember Adlai Stevenson?
Brian,
Absolutely. For example he is the only president ever to have a graduate business degree and his is from the best program in the country (perhaps the world).
Why would he not qualify as an intellectual? Certainly if Obama qualifies under your definition Bush would.
Brian, yes, Bush had the background of an intellectual. Just because he didn’t come across as the stereotype of an intellectual (Wm. F. Buckley or Kissinger for instance) doesn’t take him out of that class. Bill Clinton always seemed dumber than a rock to me, but he was a Rhodes Scholar. The last non-intellectual I can think of was Reagan and before that Truman. I may be wrong but I’m fairly certain all the rest back to FDR anyway were products of our institutes of higher education, with most having degrees in law.
Think about it, can you imagine if someone were to become a serious contender for the Presidency without a college degree or 3? Maybe in 1965 it could have happened, but back then college was a privilege. Today it’s a pre-requisite for many types of formerly high school or even GED graduate job fields. It means nothing anymore and yet it does mean something, it’s like a rite of passage or something, so a politician without college would be an anomaly and someone in the higher offices would be an enormous fluke. We simply expect all our higher up politicians to be lawyers or MBAs or Doctors.
Simply being smart isn’t good enough anymore. You have to have that piece of paper verifying your intellect.
A tweed jacket with elbow patches and a pipe are not required to define a person as an intellectual.
Bush was not stupid – but he was famously not a “thinker”. He prided himself on gut reactions – a clear moral compass etc. Bush also downplayed his education – affecting “nyucular” instead of nuclear, for example, but he was no intellectual. Obama probably is one.
Why were the Lincoln-Douglas debates at a far higher level than current debates between senatorial candidates? In the 1850s far fewer were literate, or high school graduates, or bachelor degree holders than today.
Yet with a public with a low level of formal education, Lincoln and Douglas joined the issues and argued with an eloquence that commends itself to historians today. Voters listened, and took them seriously.
What has happened since then to devalue the coherent expression of ideas?
In response to the uproar over his pastor’s “I hate America” rant, Obama offered a thoughtful, elevated critique of racism. It was well received, but now he seldom speaks to us as adults, trusting us with the complexity and nuance of real world issues.
Bush was not seen as a thinker because he defined himself that way it was part of his game.
Maybe the question is why do our leaders feel the need to pander to anti-intellectualism? I don’t want to have a beer with the President, none of the guys I have ever drunk beer with would I want anywhere close to the white house.
I think this may be a long American tradition though?
Peter, Why do you think that Obama is an intellectual? What is your definition?
I would define Bush as one. He had an excellent education, he then went on to gain a wealth of business experience that few presidents can claim. If you think Bush is all business he got his BS in History. He had what I would consider extensive political experience before the White House. Along with “intellectual” I would add very well rounded.
I would say that both Obama and Bush could easily be defined as intellectuals. But I don’t even think that Obama, given his experience, fits the stereotypical definition of an intellectual either.
Brian, don’t you think that maybe your definition is more on the stereotypical side?
Harry Truman who was certainly better read and probably more intelligent than most of our presidents prior to or since his time, was almost certainly our last President without a college degree.
Paul – Its that professorial attitude. – there’s two sides (at least) to every issue etc. We like empathy in our politicians – feeling your pain – but not intellectualism – seeing and understanding the value in the other guys point of view. We like strong values that we agree with.
Intellectualism is frequently confused with lack of decisiveness (e.g. Hamlet) and we really want our leaders to be decisive. – the decider
Brian, I’m with Paul and Lucy.
Read some US critiques of Iggy from the left and I think you’ll find why he didn’t “connect.” I don’t think it was his intellect. He’s a torture apologist and an original Iraq warmonger, who tied himself in knots trying to show he wasn’t like all the other liberals:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/cormac-ignatieffs-the-roa_b_59363.html
Citing Bush’s eduction and business experience! Good stuff.
Personally, I define an intellectual as someone who is educated, well read, worldly, and intellectually curious.
Emphasis on that last one.
You can have that first one nailed, even that second one – but without that last one, you are (at best) an encyclopedia… not an intellect.
Anyone else enjoy the movie Idiocracy?
Dave,
I agree your number three is essential. Intellectual curiosity is found in the business school just like it is found in the philosophy department, just like it is found in the kindergarten. Again, I just think there are stereotypes that cloud peoples views of what an “intellectual” really is. By some definitions none of these lawyers or MBA’s or Doctors (an MD is really a very highly paid technician) would really qualify (Bush and Obama are included there) . To some an intellectual is more confined to someone with a PhD (as in Doctor of Philosophy). As far as I know there have been very few presidents with a PhD.
i think this discussion is washing up a bit on the rocks of how one defines “intellectual.” as someone who spends a lot of time around people with very fancy diplomas, and who even managed to collect a couple myself, i find it kind of ridiculous to suggest that getting a degree from an ivy league school automatically makes you an intellectual. bush was doubtless a legacy admission to yale and clearly is no intellectual.
It looks like Woodrow Wilson was the only one with a PhD (Hopkins).
Paul,
I wasn’t suggesting that business experience, or business school, disqualifies someone as an intellectual. I was mocking the idea that Bush’s business experience or education somehow qualified him as one. A legacy admission C student frat boy who failed at most of the business ventures he inherited.
Just found it funny to cite that as evidence of his “intellectualism”
Obama was a legacy admission to Harvard.
Who was the last conservative intellectual who was President?
Wilson was the only Prez with a Phd? In that case it should be a reason NOT to pursue people with Phds for the position!
Mervel, Coolidge maybe? He was the last conservative period.
Dave, i like your “intellectually curious” idea, but I wonder if the definition of that phrase might vary among us. What I might consider intellectually stimulating might be garbage to you or someone else, I imagine the same thing would apply at higher levels. How would you quantify intellectual curiosity? Studying classic literature or studying economics? Studying history or studying current events? Kind of a wide field there.
You know, I’m looking back through these posts and I’m seeing the elitist intellectual dogma making itself apparent. George Bush can’t possibly be considered an intellectual of any kind because he failed in business and only got anywhere because of cronyism. But Harry Truman “who was certainly better read and probably more intelligent than most of our presidents prior to or since his time…” might qualify even without a college degree. Yet Harry Truman failed in business and only advanced in politics when he hooked up with the totally corrupt Kansas City Democrat machine- cronyism. I see people scoff at the idea of George W Bush being an intellectual, but I don’t see anyone dragging LBJ through the mud…why?
I think we’re getting right back into a perception issue yet again. We aren’t all defining “intellectual” the same way. If we use the standard of Wm. F. Buckley or Kissinger or Thomas Sowell, John McWhorter or even Noam Chomsky or Ronald Dworkin then Obama doesn’t even begin to fit the mold much less some of our other high profile politicians. So maybe we aren’t looking to define our intellectuals so much as we’re looking for an aristocracy of a sort. Someone with the right background and education but someone who speaks the way we expect and from the viewpoint and in the manner we expect. I’m may be bungling the presentation of that idea, but I think judging by what I read here that I’m not far off at all.
How about just being pretty smart.
I know that sounds, well unintellectual, but our Presidents should be able to think on their feet and discuss a wide range of policy issues easily, they should have an understanding of history, business, government and economics. I think we have had Presidents who fit that bill in recent memory. Clinton, Carter, Bush I, Nixon to just think of a couple across the spectrum.
Reagan, Bush II, LBJ, and Obama seem less so to me.
Mervel – Im not sure why you wouldnt put Obama in the upper group. President of Harvard law review and taught constitutional law? He may be weak on business, but so was Clinton and probably Nixon.
well now i’m looking through these comments and i’m seeing… that bret is really distorting what people are writing. people like me are scoffing at gwb being an intellectual because paul claimed in the first place that he was. on the other hand, no one’s scoffing at lbj because no one brought him up.
also no one claimed “George Bush can’t possibly be considered an intellectual of any kind because he failed in business and only got anywhere because of cronyism.” i mean, good grief, dave is the only one to comment on bush’s business career in anything approaching a negative light, and his point is very clearly that (counter to paul) business experience or education is not sufficient to qualify someone as an intellectual.
by contrast, i don’t think having a college degree is necessary to be an intellectual either. i think the important thing is to, you know, actively cultivate your intellect over the course of your life.
Peter, yeah you are probably correct. I mainly am unsure as he really does seem to rely on the prompter quite a bit so I have not really seen him just talking on his own.
Maybe it’s because because when given the chance these so called “intellectuals” fall falt on their face! Obama has not lowed the unemployment rate after being in office over two years. Yeah, I know this was Bush’s fault. Funny how Obama took full credit for killing Bin Laden. If he is so smart, why don’t we as a country have a short and long term energy policy! Such a policy might help me at the gas pump. Heating oil prices are going through the roof! In short, he is out of touch with what the middle class needs are.
Mervel – Ronald Reagan was probably the best speech maker president – maybe since FDR – both in crafting the speeches and their delivery, but I wouldnt call him an intellectual. Obama needs a teleprompter to deliver a good speech. But he evidently writes them as much as reagan did.
HT, I’m looking at the bigger picture, not the specifics, but those things stuck out to me. Let me try it this way- when I say intellectual, what do you picture? Do you picture Stephen Hawking or Alan Greenspan or Noam Chomsky? I’m betting you don’t picture the local guy that builds cabinets and reads Plato and Socrates in the evening. You darn sure don’t picture an Amish friend of mine that has the sharpest mind I’ve ever run across even if he doesn’t have so much as a high school diploma. You picture someone with all the degrees and the background and breeding, and most importantly, the appearance and demeanor to qualify as an “intellectual”. It’s a form of an aristocracy, isn’t it? In that sense Bush 2 “clearly is no intellectual”, but Obama and Clinton might be. LBJ wouldn’t fit but some would ague that Truman and Eisenhower might. Nixon would be iffy, JFK would be a shoe in, Carter would fit, Ford probably not.
It’s all in the paperwork and demeanor and perception.
Peter, he may have been editor of the Harvard Law Review but why was he an editor? “Fourteen editors (two from each 1L section) are selected based on a combination of their first-year grades and their competition scores. Twenty editors are selected based solely on their competition scores. The remaining editors are selected on a discretionary basis.” Scores or was it “discretionary”? Since nothing he’s written has been released how do we know? And as far as “teaching constitutional law” we’re again blocked from knowing just what he actually did. This is as close as I’ve come to finding out- http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html He was a lecturer and then a senior lecturer, part time positions, not a Professor by any means.
I don’t mean to cut him down really, but rather to put things in a more equal light. Antonin Scalia and John Roberts were both editors too. So was Michael Chertoff, Archibald Cox, Eliot Spitzer and Alger Hiss. So you’ve got the good and bad. It’s not like he was the only person of any notoriety to ever serve. And to be honest, I’d be a lot more impressed if I knew he got the position through scores than through discretion.
Mervel- “I don’t want to have a beer with the President, none of the guys I have ever drunk beer with would I want anywhere close to the white house. ” And yet, who was the intellectual President that hosted a “Beer Summit” at the White House? Again, could we at least be a little honest in our assessments of just who our politicians really are!??
Bret – I picture the local guy building cabinets and reading plato etc, and NOT all those government figures – although some might make it to the lower levels of “intellectual”. And, I would put all of those guys in your last paragraph in the “good”.
I’d like to have a beer with the president – any president.
Bret sez: “You picture someone with all the degrees and the background and breeding, and most importantly, the appearance and demeanor to qualify as an “intellectual.””
No, that’s what YOU picture, along with most other conservatives who use “elitist” and “intellectual” as epithets to tar people who’ve come out of the last 50 years’ SAT-based (and-often-bogus) Ivy League meritocracy. And in the GOP mind, those intellectuals are out of touch and snooty and up to no good. Mostly, though, they’re Democrats.
Me, I picture Abe Lincoln. But nobody brought him up. Why do people on this thread hate Abe Lincoln?
By the way, Bret, you should read this: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/01/lost-in-the-meritocracy/3672/
Fine, who else beyond Lincoln? Who defines a modern intellectual to YOU?
unfortunately the really correct way to assess that can’t be printed on a family blog like this, so let me just say that’s quite a load of crap, bret. you obviously have no idea what i think. you obviously haven’t been reading what i’ve been writing (or you have a debilitating lack of reading comprehension). i’ve been saying all along that academic credentials are a very poor indicator of whether someone is an intellectual or not. please try to read and process what people are actually saying rather than just projecting your misguided stereotypes.
HT, you resort to name calling and veiled profanity. Wonderful. Sorry I tried to have a discussion with someone who can’t get over themselves.
Peter, Spitzer is a criminal and Hiss was a traitor and spy. What’s so good about them?
good grief, bret, reading comprehension! i didn’t call you any names!
and look, you went off on a ridiculous tear of telling me what i think about such-and-such, with no basis for it whatsoever — as evidenced in particular the fact that what you wrote is totally wrong — and then you have the gall to tell me that i’m the one who can’t get over themselves? please.
Peter, right I think he is a good speech writer and a good speaker as was Reagan. I just don’t see Obama in the same category as someone like Clinton.
Bret, I thought Obama looked like a total dork drinking beer with those two guys, I can’t imagine he doesn’t want to forget that episode. It seemed stupid and contrived.
I just think that may be part of the problem, regular guys are okay sometimes, I mean I would want regular guys with me in war or to be my brother in law or something like that or to work for, but I don’t think we necessarily need a regular guy to be President. A true charismatic and great leader can relate to the regular guy without being a regular guy.