Americans Don't Want An Intellectual For A President.

[cali]

All this talk about bush's strength as a regular Joe, reminds me once again that Americans have a streak of anti-intellectualism as wide as the Amazon. Exhibit 1 could well be Adlai Stevenson. No average Joe was Adlai, and he was rejected, in part, because Americans weren't comfortable with his intellectual prowess. Clinton is an intellectual, but he camouflaged it with the mask of a good ol' southern boy. Reagan was certainly not an intellectual and neither was bush1. Our current bush may take the prize for lack of intellectual fire power, but history is replete with Presidents who hardly hit intellectual heights.

Being labeled as an intellectual may not be as damaging as being an atheist, but it's up there on the list of attributes that are political liabilities.

When I hear people mocking George Allen or any other candidate for being stupid, and assuming that he, or any other dim bulb candidate, would be easy to defeat, it's not only the example of bush that comes to mind, it's the defeat of Stevenson.

I'm not sure what, in the American psyche, causes this hostility, but don't ever say about a candidate that he or she is too dumb to be elected President. Sadly, it's the opposite that's true.

[BillZBubb]

1. People vote for people like themselves, you know, morons.

Dumb people always have simplistic answers. Those resonate with the voters. Intellectuals know most social problems are complex and that there are no easy answers. They also are averse to promoting what they know to be bullshit. Therefore, they lose votes.

[Canuckistanian]

2. I think anti-intelectualism was at it's height in the 50's

I remember that anyone who said things in more than two syllables or presented radical solutions to age-old problems were labelled "eggheads". Really intelligent people learned to mask their intelligence for fear of being called the dreaded "egghead".

Although it's getting to be the same today. Nowadays, "egghead" seems to be replaced with "elitist".

[long_green]

11. You should read Richard Hofstadter's

"Anti-Intellectualism in American Life." Hmmmmmm. Did I get the title right or is the last word "Society?" Oh, well. Anti-Intellectualism is as old as the Republic. We didn't ratify the Constitution before someone came along asking for votes and posing as a plain, common man of the people. There is a bit about the packaging of Davy Crockett that will strike any reader as very modern.

[Gabi Hayes]

21. thanks for the memory jog..more from Hofstadter, on the insane RW's rise

from, "The Paranoid Style"

The basic elements of contemporary right-wing thought can be reduced to three: First, there has been the now-familiar sustained conspiracy, running over more than a generation, and reaching its climax in Roosevelt’s New Deal, to undermine free capitalism, to bring the economy under the direction of the federal government, and to pave the way for socialism or communism. A great many right-wingers would agree with Frank Chodorov, the author of The Income Tax: The Root of All Evil, that this campaign began with the passage of the income-tax amendment to the Constitution in 1913.

The second contention is that top government officialdom has been so infiltrated by Communists that American policy, at least since the days leading up to Pearl Harbor, has been dominated by men who were shrewdly and consistently selling out American national interests.

Finally, the country is infused with a network of Communist agents, just as in the old days it was infiltrated by Jesuit agents, so that the whole apparatus of education, religion, the press, and the mass media is engaged in a common effort to paralyze the resistance of loyal Americans.

Perhaps the most representative document of the McCarthyist phase was a long indictment of Secretary of State George C. Marshall, delivered in 1951 in the Senate by senator McCarthy, and later published in a somewhat different form. McCarthy pictured Marshall was the focal figure in a betrayal of American interests stretching in time from the strategic plans for World War II to the formulation of the Marshall Plan. Marshal was associated with practically every American failure or defeat, McCarthy insisted, and none of this was either accident or incompetence. There was a “baffling pattern” of Marshall’s interventions in the war, which always conduced to the well-being of the Kremlin. The sharp decline in America’s relative strength from 1945 to 1951 did not “just happen”; it was “brought about, step by step, by will and intention,” the consequence not of mistakes but of a treasonous conspiracy, “a conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man.”

http://nationalism.org/patranoia/hofstadter-paranoid-style.htm

obviously dated, but prescient. all one has to do is substitute a few key words to bring it up to date

[rfranklin]

3. People resent people that they fear may actually be superior...

in terms of intellect, morals and integrity. (And I don't mean the phoney morals of the hypocrites who profess their faith on every street corner and TV program.)

They are afraid to face what they really are--not up to snuff in the eyes of Jesus or whatever example they claim to follow. So they Swift Boat the people they think might actually possess those superior qualities.

[saltpoint]

4. Cali, I hail your selection of Yeats in your signature field.

Also I believe you're right on Stevenson and the intellectual question.

Dumbya is president in no small part because he's dumber than a sack of rocks.

Kerry was less folksy but immensely better read and more evolved. Same for Gore, Bradley, etc.

[ixion]

5. it goes beyond the political, though

socially speaking, the same is true. Intellects are outcast from most social circles as well.

[saltpoint]

12. True. Sadly true. I wonder if that is the current running through

the Bush administration's anti-Science bias.

Silence the scientists, exalt the faith-based rabble, etc.

[Journeyman]

6. Thomas Jefferson was President. . .

as was Woodrow Wilson . . .

There's a definite streak of anti-intellectualism in America (see Richard Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism in American Life) but it can be overcome by the right mind -- your Clinton example shows that.

[saltpoint]

13. Maybe it's because I let modern times get to me too much, but

Jefferson and Madison and Wilson seem like anomalies next to many modern presidents, especially modern GOP presidents.

I agree with you that an open-minded voter can make the distinctions and shift the context. A supporter once told Adlai Stevenson that he had the support of every thinking person in the country, and Stevenson grimaced and replied, "That's not nearly enough; I need a majority."

[WillyT]

14. LOL !!! - THAT... Is A Great Line !!!

:rofl::hi::rofl:

[saltpoint]

18. Hi, WillyT. Long time no see. Good to bump into you. The Stevenson

campaigns were in the 50s against Eisenhower, and they lend credence to Canuckistanian's assertion that anti-intellectualism raged during that period. I agree, but I still wish both parties' candidates were thoughtful people and not just the Dems'. A bit partisan on my part, but I don't think either of the Bushes and certainly not Ford and Reagan either, will go down as the most cerebral folks to ever hold that office.

[WillyT]

20. Yep... Apparently, The Powers That Be Want More Of A...

Pliable president.

:evilgrin::hi::evilgrin:

[Imagevision]

7. Americans Don't Want A Former Cheerlader For A President.

But Bush is the stand-up guy who goes; "let me hold your jacket as you go off to war"

[bigtree]

8. I think Bill Clinton was elected because folks had enough of a man

who spoke in garbled, half-sentences. Junior followed right in his footsteps. The only difference is he finishes sentences he'd be better off ending short.

[WillyT]

9. Curious That We Have High Standards For Shuttle Astronauts, And...

Brain Surgeons to name a few, but when it comes to President, "Is he the kind of guy you could have a beer with?" seems to be the measure.

Ironic that one bad pilot or surgeon can never do as much damage to people or the planet that one bad president can.

:shrug:

[acmavm]

10. In the last election Kerry's handlers let the repubs get away with making

him look like a cold, wealthy, eastern, out-of-touch intellectual. That made pResident Drool-on-himself-during-the-debates look down to earth and human. (Which could have been mitigated to some extent if the MSM had pointed out how they had to feed him his lines.)

Personally, I want, no I demand, that the person running this country be an intellectual. Not a conniving evil kind of smart, like Poopy, but a man/woman that I can be impressed by, put my trust in, knowing that they have the kind of mentality and intellect that can look at a situation from all points of view, from every aspect, and make an intelligent decision. Not one based on how much money their family, friends, and corporate America can rake in. Or some actor who hasn't got all his marbles and is a petty, pathetic, selfish, stupid man getting flakier by the day.

[Arkansas Granny]

17. I'm with you. I would like to think that the person that's been

elected to lead our country, make decisions that will impact the U.S. and it citizens for decades, and represent us in international circles, be a hell of a lot smarter that I am. I not only want him to be an intellectually superior person, I want him to have honesty, integrity and excellent diplomatic skills. I was aghast that anyone could look at Bush and see Presidential material. He possesses none of these attributes and the fact that some people would feel comfortable sitting down and having a beer with him is not at all impressive.

[pinto]

15. And, oddly enough, many people don't seem to want a politician

as President.

[undeterred]

16. The rest of the world should have some say in our elections

since what we do affects everyone. And I bet they'd rather see intellectual Clinton, Gore, or Kerry than Dumbass Bush. You don't have to speak the same language to know the difference.

[upi402]

19. Tough leader, tall, good looking, charismatic or very likeable

We are a dum

[Rosemary2205]

22. I don't agree

Americans want a president who they think (or rather propaganded into thinking) will relate to regular American difficulties and struggles. IMHO to the average American "intellectual" refers to someone who's out of touch with having to find a job and keep the kids in spaghettios. Yes, Clinton is very intelligent but he comes from poverty so the average America felt he would understand what life is really like.

IMHO it doesn't matter whether the candidate is smart or stupid - just does the American public think he can "relate".

[samsingh]

23. how about an idiot instead?

[Jamison]

24. It just looks better to have an intelligent President.

I'd love to have someone in there who's scholarly and posesses a high IQ. * is simply an embarassment. It doesn't bother most average Americans, but you should hear what they say in Europe; "Your President is an imbecile", etc.

[bpilgrim]

25. Let's run a Hollywood liberal, then ;->

or at least an OUTSIDER, who is a POPULOUS and we will clean up... when we get rid of BBV :evilgrin:

peace

[BlooInBloo]

26. Then they deserve what they've wrought.

Idiots.

[shadowknows69]

27. Screw that

I want Einstein as my president

[BreweryYardRat]

28. Fine. Run me as a candidate in 2024.

I'm the perfect combination. Intelligent, but I have a hard time expressing myself verbally, so I don't seem intelligent. Oh, yeah, and I have a southern accent to boot.

;)

[ContraBass Black]

29. Smarter people are scary.

Americans are so afraid of getting worked over by a smart guy that they'll work themselves over and follow a dumb one.

[radio4progressives]

30. It appears the more of a Moron someone is, the better Ahmurkins like 'em

It's astonishing.

[Cleita]

31. I think most of us do want a smart and responsible person

for President. Unfortunately, those who want a dumbass president are those who live in states who have more votes than population.

If you took a vote population wise you would see the smart guy win. But when a state like Wyoming has more electoral votes and senators per population than a state like California, then you can see how they can tip the balance.