Posted on 06/04/2005 12:32:59 PM PDT by quidnunc
After George W. Bush told reporters he'd been reading the same book for two months, late-night television host Conan O'Brien wisecracked that it was probably because he hadn't found Waldo yet.
It's a good joke, but it dovetails with a persistent line of sneering we've been hearing against the US President for years: he has no serious intellectual interests, so he doesn't belong in the White House. I happen to believe he does belong in the White House, but I don't plan to argue that point here: first, because this is not the opinion page and, second, because I'm concerned Phillip Adams might threaten harm to my children. What I do plan to challenge here, however, is the implication that intellectuals belong anywhere near the dials and levers of political power.
Another Waldo, Ralph Waldo Emerson, established early in American culture the bias towards men of practical endeavour in political leadership. The successful legislator, argued America's foundational philosopher, should be a rough-handed and optimistic fellow not given to examining the minute subtleties of every matter put before him. Emerson was a liberal, but his description fits nobody better than Ronald Reagan and, after him, the second President Bush.
But while Emerson's comment could be dismissed as another example of anti-intellectualism in American life, the features that make the intellectual unfitted to political power are written deep into how the West conceives the life of the mind. The first Western intellectual, Socrates, was put to death for being a gadfly and asking inconvenient questions. This sets up the intellectual as the "other" of those who decide what goes.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.news.com.au ...
As I've said before, "intellectual" and "intelligent" are not necessarily mutually compatible terms.
One-worlders never afraid of subverting truth, justifying means, twisting words, compromising honor, promising everything, believing in nothing.
BTW, Emerson said, among countless other meaningless aphorisms, "To be great is to be misunderstood." I'd be surprised if Conan couldn't make something of that. But I liked the Emerson leader-description. That may have been the ONLY time he was right. I suspect, however, that he preferred his "leaders" maleable enough to influence them with his own vast wisdom.
Interesting read. Throughout history, the intellectuals had idealistic ideals but did not understand reality. Those who understand reality and are intellectual are not understood by the masses. Maybe the masses need 200 more years of suffering to understand the combination.
[As I've said before, "intellectual" and "intelligent" are not necessarily mutually compatible terms.]
Nothing illustrates that better than the presidency of Jimmy Carter
One-worlders never afraid of subverting truth, justifying means, twisting words, compromising honor, promising everything, believing in nothing.
I am convinced that the moral/intellectual relevantism you are alluding to, mach9, will be the downfall of the western culture, because the stronger will of our enemy shall defeat it everytime.
There is a term "antillectual". It has very rich and profound meaning. I suggest we start using it more frequently.
This article makes some good points, but misses something very important: The statist/relativist intellectuals have enormous influence on our society. A politician has to be intellectual enough to explain why they are WRONG. Bush isn't much good at this, because he isn't intellectual enough. Character and common sense can take you only so far. Why can't he stand up and say WHY human cloning or partial birth abortion or gay marriage is wrong? Or why it's wrong to remove religious symbols from the "public square"? All he does is mouth slogans. Sometimes, on these social issues, I get the impression that GWB is sleepwalking through history. This doesn't get us very far.
a true intellectual, provided he has callouses, is not a problem.
an Intellectualist, on the other hand, is a calamity.
I had this argument with a liberal.
Lib: Bush is a moron
Me: He had a higher IQ then both Kerry and Gore
Lib: Kerry is smarter, Bush is a moron
Me: Bush had a better GPA then both Kerry and Gore. Gore flunked out of semenary school and Kerry didn't do graduate work at an Ivy league school
Lib: Bush talks like a moron
Me: I guess you proved your point.
hehhehheh... see my profile page, scroll down a bit
The Left even has a few intelligent people, but they are largely devoid of wisdom...and without wisdom, one can't apply intelligence usefully.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.