On anti-intellectualism / anti-liberalism -"What's the Matter with Kansas"

[bloom]

I finally got around to reading "What's the Matter with Kansas" and this was one of the things that I thought was interesting - as far as shining light on the "wingnuts" - intellectualism and anti-intellectualism. First he describes the Republicans as being split into two groups - the Moderate Republicans (traditional, more wealthy, more corporate) and the working class Republicans (more likely to be converts from Democrats?)

Frank describes the one group - the corporatists - as being against intellectuals because they blame intellectuals for writing "the New Deal" and Social Security. Cutting into their profits.

And then you have the other group (esp. "bitter self-made men") who hate intellectuals because intellectuals are "anti-God", pro-choice, pro-evolution - all the "evils" of the world. Also - intellectuals are blamed for representing the professional class which was responsible for Roe V. Wade (to give the decision to Doctors - not women) - and scientists - who are the "evil ones" when it comes to getting their way by virtue of their degrees and status in matters of evolution, the stem-cell debate, global warming or whatever.

Even though - clearly not all Democrats see themselves as intellectuals - they probably do appreciate Social Security and Scientists. And this is clearly the divide that Ann Coulter and others are pushing. And of course there are all sorts of contradictions where corporatists like Bush (or any of those in power) are also a part of the intellectual (esp. Ivy League class) that they supposedly despise. And it's hard to believe that some people would really like everyone (but themselves) to be uneducated. But the book does help sort things out. And it makes a little more sense that they would be on the same side.

[baby_mouse]

1. The Anti-Intellectual Push is pure reaction. And their downfall.

What they have forgotten is that we have hearts, too.

[Bill McBlueState]

2. not all Democrats appreciate scientists

A lot of Democrats are huge believers in pseudoscience: astrology, homeopathy, etc. Rather than an appreciation of scientists, buying into pseudoscience shows a lot of contempt for the people who put their lives into scientific research.

There's anti-intellectualism on both sides. The difference is that the conservative outlook is characterized by anti-intellectualism, while on our side it's a fringe element.

[JuniperLea]

4. Excuse me, but that is pure bull...

And I'll pass your sentiments along to the American Mensa Parapsychology Special Interest Group, many of whom are scientists and still others teach science and math at leading US universities.

Where do you get that anyway?

[bloom]

5. I can be skeptical

as many are - of what the standard line is regarding some "scientific" things. Like I am more cautious when it comes to pesticides, GM crops, mercury, and such. I haven't gotten into homeopathy yet - but I don't dismiss it. And I recognized the benefits of yoga before the scientific community did. And I esp. don't like everything that scientists are coming up with - esp. untested stuff that turns out to be harmful.

But in general - I appreciate the scientific method. And I don't see it as anti-religious to do so. I don't see the polarity. I would say very few scientists would argue for the literal interpretation of the Bible - but I think that's just radicalism - polemics anyway. For instance, my brother, with an engineering degree, didn't believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible until he got caught up in the right-wing wacko hoopla.

[Iblis]

3. America has always been "Anti-Intellectual"

"I ain't much fer fancy book learnin'"

"Longhaired books"

"What do you know, college-boy?"

"Should I try to be a straight 'A' student? If you are then you think too much."

Things seemed to get worse during the Cliton Era for some reason, and now is worse than ever.

I was actually told by my parents that they wouldn't argue with me because, "You always have to use facts and stuff."

Just a thought.

L

[Iris]

6. No, "folks" don't like facts.

They want everything to be black and white. It must make them feel good to have a label like "intellectualism" to throw on anything that boggles their brains the slightest little bit.

[Iblis]

7. It's got to make things easier.

It's got to make things simpler.

Not just for "folks", but also the suburbanite who "doesn't have time" to think through issues.

Remember USA Today's original slogan "For those who find TV news too complex"!?


L

[Iris]

8. seriously?

That was really USA Today's slogan?

Yeah - the suburbanite - black and white assuages the guilt they should be feeling.

[NYC]

9. What a slogan.

I never knew that. A newspaper for people who find soundbites too much.