Maybe because your version of “intellectual” is in fact “pseudo-intellectual” ... high-sounding, shallow nonsense.
Truth is plain and clear. Honest people are usually the most concise.
The Constitution can fit in your pocket because it’s straight talk. But if 2700 page Healthcare Bills crafted by indulgent academics who may spend a lot of time in books but have no understanding of how the world literally functions is your cup of tea than so be it.
There is more “depth” to someone who’s experienced what it’s like to live amidst the natural wonders of Alaska than someone who’s been jaded by some of the worst trappings of modernity. Minds have very little room to expand within the walled confines of a university—and besides, it’s not as if Palin is not well-read or unknowledgable about history.
In the end how you talk means and what kind of wine you drink means nothing—it’s your actions and accomplishments that count.
Maybe because your version of “intellectual” is in fact “pseudo-intellectual” ... high-sounding, shallow nonsense.
<><><><><><><
No, I don’t think so. I’m pretty sure I can tell the difference. But, that’s a matter of opinion, I guess.
If you have read any of the three authors I have mentioned (or perhaps Thomas Sowell, who is in my opinion the most likely contemporary for inclusion in that group) you would be aware that "shallow nonsense" is a far from accurate description.
My concept of a conservative intellectual is one who is grounded in the historical roots of conservatism from classical times through the growth of European conservatism and the writings of our founding fathers.
A good example of a "shallow" comment would be "“Plato said it well, ‘Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle,’" when what you're citing is a made up quote pulled off the internet.