From Singapore to Japan, politicians pretend to be smarter and better- educated than they actually are, because intellect is an asset at the polls. In the United States, almost alone among developed countries, politicians pretend to be less worldly and erudite than they are (Bill Clinton was masterful at hiding a brilliant mind behind folksy Arkansas sayings about pigs).Alas, when a politician has the double disadvantage of obvious intelligence and an elite education and then on top of that tries to educate the public on a complex issue — as Al Gore did about climate change — then that candidate is derided as arrogant and out of touch.
Maybe when we elect Obama, it will signify the end of it - he is a Harvard-educated policy wonk. Though he'll likely be elected in spite of that. As long certain talk show hosts feed the hatred of the educated, intelligent, and informed liberal, I'm not sure how to fix anti-intellectualism. I'm not sure there is a way. This might be the one issue I'm really not optimistic about. It's going to take more than an ad campaign. It might take a realization that evolution-doubting, UFO seeing, "elitist"-hating America has suddenly become a second citizen in the world. By the time we stop being anti-intellectual, the world may be so fundamentally changed that the best we can hope to climb back to is not dictating world affairs, but being a good world citizen. Hell, maybe that's a good thing for all of us.
When did "elite" stop meaning something to strive for, and begin meaning something to despise?
4 comments:
I consider myself an intellectual and I can't tell you how proud I am of it. Anti-intellectualism is a scourge! However, anti-elitism is probably a good idea. I don't like the way you conflate intellectualism with liberalism - or seem to. I think liberalism borders on elitism at times - the notion that I know better than you and think I should tell you how to live your life. We are a very free, and at times, libertarian-minded society. I think this is where people get their negativity. Anti-elitism gets perverted into anti-intellectualism and gives the intellectuals a bad name.
Then again, it could just be a bullies vs. nerds schoolyard mentality. That would be terrifying.
You're definitely right about elitism not being something to strive for, but I would argue that the word "elite" is not the same as "elitism". I think the public does conflate the two, and here you get your anti-intellectualism. You're probably also right that I shouldn't lump intellectuals and liberals together necessarily, but as far as political parties and the last few decades of elections, one side is clearly the side of the intellectual, and the other has declared war on science.
As far as liberals telling people how to live their lives, at the moment, it certainly seems we're the party of privacy. All the Republicans in Congress follow Bush in creating the Surveillance State, and they're the ones that want the federal government to be just small enough to fit into a woman's womb and a gay person's bedroom. Most self-proclaimed liberals that I know have no problem with anyone living their lives as long as it doesn't infringe on others.
I should add that my original point was that Limbaugh, et al are the ones conflating the image of elitist liberals with all intellectuals and thus creating, or at least feeding, the anti-intellectualist movement among hard line conservatives. So the perversion you speak of is being initiated by conservative radio in an intentional manner.
I too consider myself an intellectual. A recent email I sent was returned with the comment "what is this, a frickin spelling bee?" Damn this penchant for multi-syllable words.
Americans are not alone in this anti-intellectualism. Look to the last Liberal party selection in Canada - poor Ignatieff, the Harvard professor-world traveller-big word user was crucified as a "snob".
Post a Comment