Intellectualism is the New Communism
by Emily Cadik on December 10, 2008 in Opinion
Every time I return to Texas, I encounter a slew of reminders that I’m not in Cambridge anymore. One time, I found out my hometown had a river that wasn’t there before (because you can’t build a riverwalk without a river, am I right?). This time, I passed a billboard next to a church boasting “150 foot cross - COMING SOON!!!” And just when I thought I couldn’t be more saturated with the spirit of Texas, I read my local paper’s letters to the editor.
A Neysa Thorell of Montgomery, Texas was sounding the alarm about the socialist storm headed to Washington. She grabbed my attention with the following: “Calling Obama a socialist is not pejorative; it’s a statement, an observation if you will.” I began to lose interest as she got into an assortment of the standard complaints that we’ve heard from the right for months - he associates with terrorists, anarchists, etc. But then, the kicker: “He’s done drugs with who knows who and indulged in existential musings with Harvard-educated intellectuals.“
Feeling my social life directly insulted (only the latter part of her accusation, that is), I began to ponder the root cause of her animosity towards Harvard. Sure, Harvard is liberal, but I’ll see your Harvard and raise you a Berkeley. Harvard is also prone to bouts of intellectual snobbery, no doubt, but so are Princeton and Yale. I think (though perhaps I’m putting words in her mouth) that her problem is not really with Harvard, but with intellectuals in general.
For instance, I doubt Thorell was concerned about George W. Bush’s Harvard Business School education. In her defense, it’s entirely conceivable he sought out associations only with non-intellectuals, even at Harvard. Bush’s swagger allowed us to overlook his Ivy League credentials with ease, proving that the pedigree is irrelevant - it’s all about whether or not you flaunt your smarts. And for some reason, a large swath of American voters prefers that their leaders keep their intellect to themselves.
Without rehashing the arguments for why it’s probably a good idea if the president is smarter and better informed than the average American, I think it’s fair to say that the persistence of anti-intellectualism in American politics is increasingly puzzling. We tried letting the guy you’d like to get a beer with run the country. Now the country is broken, and I never got my beer.
Most of us don’t regularly socialize with our elected officials, whether in bars, at Little League games, on their ranches, or even hunting wolves. With the exception of primary voters in Iowa or New Hampshire, the chances of getting that kind of face time are pretty slim. And yet many voters still choose leaders based on whether they are qualified for such social activities instead of, say, policy analysis or commanding an army.
I know it’s been a month since the election and most of us are over her now, but Sarah Palin remains an eternal mystery. It baffles me to think that so many people were excited about the prospect of someone who doesn’t appear to read newspapers, much like our current president… who invaded the wrong country and denied global warming. I see the appeal in the kind of woman with whom someone would want to attend a hockey game or slaughter a turkey, but she’s still someone who is also - dare I say - even less informed than Bush. If Bush didn’t convince the Palin-supporting segment of the electorate to choose intellect and sound judgment over folksy charm in our leaders, I don’t know what will.
Fortunately, this year the majority of Americans chose a leader who is not ashamed of his intelligence. It seems enough people realized that the personal qualities used for selection into fraternities don’t necessarily cut it in times of need. We can only hope that Obama’s track record will convince voters that it’s probably a good idea to elect someone we know to be intelligent, and that maybe Harvard-educated intellectuals aren’t so bad after all. If Harvard-educated intellectuals include the likes of John and Ted Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Ralph Waldo Emerson and over 50 Nobel Prize winners, then we should be so lucky.
Comments
3 Responses to “Intellectualism is the New Communism”
Got something to say?
I think your information about Sarah Palin, having been obtained by reading just those newspapers we all spurn, is false.
Why would anyone for example, want to read the NY Times, which has been proven to have made things up several times in the past to serve its agenda?
They are no longer a credible news source. I would rather as governor, that she stick with things affecting her domain, which was the state of Alaska. As the most popular governor in the country, I think she has done that well.
And anyone can appear uninformed if their ABC interview is heavily edited so that the answers do not match the original questions. Apparently you did not know this?
Finally, climate change has been around as long as the planet and thus, the climate will continue to ‘change’ whether there are people here or not. You aren’t one of those who thinks people were on the earth when the dinosaurs roamed? They died due to climate change (Utah used to be a swamp) and that was a natural occurance. Plus, since there are now 15,000 more polar bears than there were in 1960 (there are 20,000) that is an increase of 400% regardless of the photos you see flashed on the screen when pseudo news programs talk about the extinction of species.
I should think that a thinking person like Palin, who knows that global warming is just a theory cooked up to extract more tax dollars from us to go directly to the evil UN and its world government would be a refreshing change from all the liberal-bot ideas that are shoved down the throats of those in academia.
Palin at least spoke of principles and real ideas, not just platitudes of ‘change’ — the usual mantra of socialist dictators who don’t clarify what they are saying.
At least none of Palin’s followers thought the congress that receives 14% approval rating was Republican or believed she would have been able to pay their rent, car payments, and grocery bills or that she had the power to stop the oceans from rising…
Now THAT kind of stupidity is truly baffling.
If this is what is coming out of ‘Harvard’ these days, I am truly scared.
Oh and by the way, Obama has a track record? Maybe of corruption but of nothing else.
The Nobel Prize was trashed when Al Gore got it for a powerpoint presentation over a woman who saved Jewish children from the Nazis.
Nobel is no longer a word that invokes respect.
Not being an intellectual myself, I always wondered why in revolutions, the intellectuals are the first to be hanged. After close observation over the last 8 years, now I know and since you, Emily Cadik, as a Harvard (sniff) intellectual can’t figure it out, I’ll tell you.
Let’s begin with Gregory Mankiw. He’s a Harvard man and was appointed to the President’s Council of Economic Advisors where he recommended that fast food joints like McD’s be reclassified as manufacturing because the burgers are assembled in an assembly line. Just brilliant.
Next, how about Albert “Earth has a Fever” Gore Jr? He too is a Harvard man. You have to give him some credit - even though he’s a few cards short of a full deck, he doesn’t think small. When he was Vice President, his big idea: Let’s reinvent government! Retire government employees and contract out government functions using loss leader contracts. Just brilliant. (fyi: a loss leader contract is a sucker deal. The first contract is low balled and once the function is owned by the contractor, the price skyrockets).
Now we can look at a project of the John F. Kennedy School of Government that I believe was named “Visions of Governance in the 21st Century”. This was a joint project with Stanford University to brainstorm the idea of “Preventative Defense”. There is one report in particular that you should look at. It was done in 1998 titled, “Catastrophic Terrorism: Elements of a National Policy”. Curious title wouldn’t you say? This made even more curious by the fact John Deutch (CIA Director resigned for compromising national security) and Philip Zelikow (Executive Director and Chief Myth Maker of the 9-11 Commission) were listed on the cover as authors. Also a participant in this project - another Haaavahd professor, Elaine Kamarck, “End of Government As We Know It” infamy (Ref: Newt Gingrich, American Solutions video). Other participants of the Catastrophic Terrorism Study Group: Zoe Baird, Robert Gates, Jamie Gorelick, Robert Zoellick, Herbert Winokur and William Perry. But I suppose this is all just a coincidence of “intellectuals” getting together to “imagine the transforming event”.
I could on with this. Actually, I could go on and on and on with this but it’s making me sick to my stomach. Your Haaavahd degree will open doors for you that are closed to the majority of the population, but don’t for one second confuse that with either having an intellect worthy of the reputation or character and integrity superior to that woman in Texas that you so despise. I don’t know anything about her but I’d wager that you aren’t worthy to shine her shoes