Girl Groups Changed Pop.
1 hour ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Sites We See
Some Blogs
-
Major General John Charles Frémont led US troops in California and had forged an army of crack troops who were experienced in war (the Mexican-American W...5 hours ago
-
*This is a guest post by Humphrey Nabimanya, founder of Reach a Hand Uganda. * [image: 2016-04-15-1460736651-1435623-huffpo1.jpg]*Journalists and bloggers...8 years ago
-
As Gandhi never quite said, First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. Then you win. I remember one of the first TV debates I had...8 years ago
-
See PostSecret videos, discover new PostSecret links, pre-order the new PostSecret book. Visit '*The World of PostSecret*'.9 years ago
-
4 comments:
the link i posted was a response to kristof's op-ed. i agree with both but think that it IS more about the package of the "intellectual" than it is about whether or not that person is actually an "intellectual."
posturing yourself as one, or allowing your image to be too much like one, can be dangerous in terms of electability, it seems. why else would someone as smart as bill clinton use hog aphorisms?
Sure. This is a tough issue for me for a lot of reasons. But I definitely fall towards what Kristof is saying. And re the idea that Americans wouldn't be able to relate to Obama's intellectuality, that was obviously a theme of McCain's campaign. To me, that is far more of a campaign issue, a matter of getting elected and winning elections, than one of a president's effectiveness. The Republican party post Bush 41 has made this a populist issue: they can win elections by posturing to the non-intellectual majority of Americans, and trying to turn them against intellectuals. The idea they're spreading is no longer one of, "Your child could go to Harvard, too"; rather, they've sided with this question, "Why would you want to go to Harvard?" Again, the central point here is that the anti-intellectual movement present in the GOP is borne of winning elections. I'm sure Newt Gingrich - with his PhD in European History - wouldn't argue that Joe the Plumber would be the better candidate for Speaker of the House because his credentials don't include a college degree or an affinity for ideas. I'm also quite certain that Mr Sowell would, if pressed, argue that he's a far more authoritative voice on economics than I am. Education and self-directed learning, these are things that are valuable. It doesn't mean that Stephan Hawking would be the most suitable candidate to lead our country. One's intelligence, curiosity, thoughtfulness, intellectual capacity...these things come together to form one's mind and mindset. That mind is one of many variables, and the modern GOP has tried to - far worse than downplay its importance - turn a brilliant mind into an albatross. It's a sad theme, and many Republicans are pissed about it. William Buckley, I believe, would be saddened by the current state of the National Review, much as son is. I also think he would have been up in arms over McCain's choice for VP. Her vast ignorance is indicative of this type of reverse culture war where one is criticized for having certain interests. Again, the argument here isn't quite against elitism (which connotes a certain arrogance and haughtiness that condescends toward those considered less intelligent); it's against intellectuality (as the composite of thoughtfulness, curiosity, love of ideas, etc.), specifically tied to an intellectual's ABILITY to lead, make tough decisions and generally govern the people. And I think that's as fatuous and misguided as saying an accountant's interest in numbers and mathematical ability would be be detrimental to his ability to balance the books.
so are you saying that the GOP is anti-intellectual or that their campaigns have been anti-intellectual?
Within a certain faction of the GOP, it's become central to the ideology. But that's because their main focus in government is winning elections. Beyond that, they seem to be at a loss for ideas. There does exist a sizable arm of the Republican party that is not at all anti-intellectual. Many of my favorite commentators, writers and politicians are Republicans. But the Palin choice was validation for the far-less interesting side of the party, and an embarassment to the thoughtful wing of the GOP. Her candidacy in 2012 would be a bad move for the Republican party as well as the nation.
Post a Comment