[jla]

RE: Reagan and intellectuals

I'm not too impressed with most so-called intellectuals. I don't like the word as a descriptive and I believe a preponderance of 'intellectuals' throughout history held, and helped effect, ideas destructive to societies.

Reagan was damn smart; very wise. More so than a great many 'intellectuals'.

[Jim W N]

Liberal definition of intellectuals: university professors who publish and are in agreement with the others in the "intellectual elite"? I agree with your distrust of the word and group so identified. There seems to be little here to do with reason or truth or even logic. How can those who espouse stupid beliefs be considered "intellectual" when so much of what they hold is clearly refuted by theory and factual history (ex. socialist governments, command and control economies v. constitutional republics and free-market economies). The application of the word as so many including the words used to ID the socialists themselves ("liberal" and "progressive") is an oxymoron.

Having said all that, I don't think Reagan was in the (liberal) intellectual "elite" the way maybe Milton Friedman was. Maybe the libs think you have to publish to be an intellectual? M-W definition of intellectual:

1 a : of or relating to the intellect or its use b : developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : rational c : requiring use of the intellect 2 a : given to study, reflection, and speculation b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect

Given the many years Reagan thought and read about the issues and politics of the day, I'd say he fits this definition more than many professing "intellectuals." IMHO, a true “intellectual” should have reason, truth, logic, and tested and proven theory on his side. Also keen insight. Well-read Reagan beats the bunch under these qualifications.

BTW, I like some of your insights and comments on this thread.