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
.png)
.png)
“…a debilitating lack of reading comprehension…” ie- you’re stupid Bret. Last time I was in the school yard/bar that was name calling.
My sincerest apologies for not parsing my statements in the proper terminology to avoid ruffling your feathers. I will try and be far more diligent in reviewing my responses to you for the proper nuance and politically correct/CYA phrasing. So let me put it this way- I don’t know exactly what you define as an intellectual, but I doubt you;d agree with my definition. Is that better?
FWIW- I have noticed there are at least 2 kinds of intellectuals- those like William Buckley that simply are and those who attempt to become. Someone else noted that a tweed jacket with elbow patches doesn’t make you an intellectual. Neither does holding high political office.
Mervel, I’ve often said that the desire to be President should be an automatic disqualification! Fred Thompson said something along the same lines last election cycle, “I didn’t wake up every morning for the last 20 years wanting to be President”. To me that speaks to what you’re saying. We don’t need “regular guys” that want to be President. What we need is people with character and intelligence that are seemingly born for the position. Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt. I don’t agree with everything they all did, but they all displayed leadership and command authority, resolve, character and had an eye to the good of the nation. We don’t have the common man anecdotes from Washington, Jefferson, etc. but we do for TR. His fellow soldiers, ranch hands, etc. speak of a “regular guy” in many ways, but one who was larger than life- a leader, complete with failings and limits. The problem today seems to be that we don’t get leaders very often, we get politicians. Not the same thing at all, and we’re far poorer for it.
yet again you’re reading things that aren’t there. obviously “a debilitating lack of reading comprehension” isn’t meant to be a good thing, but there’s no “i.e.” about it, that’s absolutely not equivalent to calling you stupid.
your new way to “put it” is certainly better, but it’s also totally different from what you said in your 8:51 comment. then you were telling me what i think. now you’re saying you don’t know. totally different!
and for the record, i happen to think our notions of intellectual are much much closer than you realize.
Bringing it back to what Canadians made of Michael Ignatieff, here’s a detailed column on where he and his party may have gone wrong by Star National Affairs writer Linda Diebel.