 |
| |
|
|
Freeciv Developer
Copenhagen, Denmark
|
Jan 1970
time: 02:56
| |
|
|
From http://www.bilerico.com/2008/10/the...llectualism.php
This seems very apropos for a country which could elect Bush junior, and consider Sarah Palin.
quote:
It seems there is a new threat to our country- an insidious danger that is seeping into our homes and everyday lives that must be stopped at any cost. That threat is intellectualism.
We have heard the some of the buzzwords of this political season- Folksy, Joe Six-pack, Elitist, and Arugula Eating. It seems the new "culture war" or wedge issue is intelligence. The Vice-Presidential debate only solidified the lines in this war. On one side, you had Palin- full of "folksy charm" and "you betcha" language. Then you had Biden, who had a command of the issues, but was called "boring" and (gasp!) "professorial" by the pundits.
Is this the point we have come to in our country? Do we really think that having knowledge about an issue is a liability? Have we learned nothing from the past eight years about voting for the person you "want to have a beer with"? Is being smart or intellectually curious a bad thing?
It seems the war is on and the Republicans have launched another surge strategy.
I have been absolutely dumbfounded as I have watched the level of discourse (and the ensuing media coverage) in this political season. There has always been a level of "east coast intellectual" bashing from the right, but this cycle it has been raised to a completely new level.
We have seen McCain release vapid attack ad after attack ad about "celebrity", all the while being devoid of any facts or issues. We have seen Palin stumble through interviews, to the point of not even being able to name any newspapers she reads (very reminiscent of George W Bush, who famously said he doesn't read). The media even praised Palin in the debate for being "down to earth" and a "breath of fresh air."
How is dumbing down our country a breath of fresh air? Lowering the discourse to these levels (Paris Hilton, hockey moms, and lipstick- oh my!) has been staggering and disheartening to watch.
The war has not only been waged by promoting the "Joe Six-pack" quality (a term that makes my skin crawl and sounds incredibly offensive) of McCain and Palin, however. They GOP has taken to throwing around charges of elitism, arugula eating, latte and martini drinking to show how Obama and Biden- and by extension all Democrats- are "out of touch" with "real" Americans. It's an amazing argument- by being too smart and thoughtful on issues, they just don't understand anything. Want proof? They eat fancy salad and drink coffee.
It is also constantly being said that both Obama and Biden are too "professorial", as if being an intelligent leader is a weakness. Professors are people who KNOW THINGS and can lead and teach others. How is that an insult? They simply know too much to be the leaders of the free world? All those pesky details floating around in their heads makes it impossible for them to lead? Huh?
How did we get here? I certainly don't want just any old Average Joe to lead our country. I want someone who knows facts and issues. And if they don't know something, I want someone with the intellectual curiosity to learn and find out! Pick up a newspaper, get online, and surround yourself with other intelligent people. Yet McCain can't use the internet and Palin can't name a paper she reads. Where is the intellectualism to be a true leader in this time of trouble in our country?
Let me be clear- I don't care if politicians don't seem "fun" or "folksy"- I don't want to have a beer with them. I want them to lead. "Going with your gut" is not a viable option for this level of leadership. Quick sound bites or catch phrases don't make you a good leader. I don't care if you can hunt, were in the PTA, or wink at me- I want you to be educated about the issues facing our country.
Intellectualism is a quality we want in a leader. I would rather have someone who might be a bit dry and heavy on the facts than someone who is folksy and dead wrong any day.
But hey, what do I know? Maybe I'll just stick to eating my elitist arugula salad and reading.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Emperor
The Taste of Japan
|
Sep 2000
time: 01:56
| |
|
|
Stupid people vote.
|
|
| |
|
|
Freeciv Developer
Copenhagen, Denmark
|
Jan 1970
time: 02:56
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DaShi
Stupid people vote. |
There are stupid people in Denmark too, but we don't have that problem on the same scale as you. Being stupid does not have to mean that you believe being stupid is good, and vote for other stupid people.
|
|
| |
|
|
Emperor
|
Feb 2000
time: 03:56
| |
|
|
I'm sorry but I don't think intellectualism has anything to do with leadership.
Leadership is knowing on whose advice to rely on and what step to take, even if it's on popular. Basically, it's like bush said - it's all about taking decisions. This calls for guts, political know how, common sense, decensy.
Great leaders are often called "wise" for the choises they make, but they aren't always intellectuals. This is a fairy tale invented by "The West Wing" where the president always knew every little detail and would spend hours pouring meaningless statistics on his staff.
He does not need to be the smartest or most educated.
A leader has a staff and professional advisors that prepare background facts, policy advice, think tanks and what not.
The leader's role is to have just enough intellect to understand the problems he's facing, alot of courage to make the right, often unpopular decisions, and enough political know how to see the through.
That does not equate with being an expert in foreign affars, economy and what not.
|
|
| |
|
|
Emperor
orangesoda
|
Nov 2001
time: 18:56
| |
|
|
smart > dumb
While what Siro says is true, smart is still > dumb. Smart is certainly not < dumb.
|
|
| |
|
|
Freeciv Developer
Copenhagen, Denmark
|
Jan 1970
time: 02:56
| |
|
|
There also seems to be a lot of fundamentalism on all kinds of issues in the US. I define fundamentalism as a strongly held opinion not based on facts, reasoning or evidence.
For example, current Republicans have a strong fundamentalist belief that tax cuts are the solution for all economic problems. This belief is not backed by actual economists, but seems to have been passed on to them by their messiah, Reagan...
IMO there is a connection between the US acceptance of religion and the (low) quality of debate in politics. The anti-science attitude which is necessary to accept religion (virgin birth, anti-evolution, etc) seems to have carried over to normal politics, where it suddenly is ok to think that tax cuts are the solution to everything without actually checking with current economic science.
Last edited by Thue on 04-10-2008 at 21:57
|
|
| |
|
|
Traianvs
|
|
 |
|
King
Belgium, land of plenty (corruption)
|
Jan 2000
time: 02:56
| |
|
|
And the fundamentalist belief of deregulation... The fact that Palin for one calls for deregulation in the height of the financial crisis is mind-blowing. Those business banks have been juggling money around for years without any responsability, stacking up the enormous profits for several decades while leaving the problems to the state. Well now, that certainly calls for deregulation 
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I'm sorry but I don't think intellectualism has anything to do with leadership.
Leadership is knowing on whose advice to rely on and what step to take, even if it's on popular. Basically, it's like bush said - it's all about taking decisions. This calls for guts, political know how, common sense, decensy.
Great leaders are often called "wise" for the choises they make, but they aren't always intellectuals. This is a fairy tale invented by "The West Wing" where the president always knew every little detail and would spend hours pouring meaningless statistics on his staff.
He does not need to be the smartest or most educated.
A leader has a staff and professional advisors that prepare background facts, policy advice, think tanks and what not.
The leader's role is to have just enough intellect to understand the problems he's facing, alot of courage to make the right, often unpopular decisions, and enough political know how to see the through.
That does not equate with being an expert in foreign affars, economy and what not. |
I beg to disagree. Being intellectual often is part of leadership. A leader can be intellectual and be able to make decisions simultaneously, especially if those decisions are unpopular (they're intellectuals with a lot of factual knowledge remember  ).
If a leader merely needs enough intellectual capacity to understand the right choices, then there are many potential presidents walking around the globe... I want the best of the ****ing best out there. People with enough background, intellectual and experiencewise, so they can make the best decisions.
If you're not intelligent enough yourself you have to rely too much on advisors who can manipulate you and who can have their own agenda, cf. G. Bush Jr. who surrounded himself with a truckload of neocons who succesfully hacked his rule.
Your opinion is baffling. Honestly...
|
|
| |
|
|
Emperor
|
Feb 2000
time: 03:56
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
smart > dumb
While what Siro says is true, smart is still > dumb. Smart is certainly not < dumb. |
i can't believe i'm saying this, since i usually also prefer smarter people but:
intellectual != smart.
non-intellectual != dumb.
intellectuals can be biased, or can partake in the dumbest theories that are popular in their circle.
think about the wonderful intellectuals that dreamt of a socialist utopia. think of the excellent intellectuals who only rely on the invisble hand.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
It seems there is a new threat to our country |
New threat? New?
One may want to check out the 1952 and 1956 elections (among others) if they think this is a "new" threat.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I think you are making Siro's point for him (ie, wisdom and intellectualism isn't necessarily the same thing)
|
|
| |
|
|
Emperor
orangesoda
|
Nov 2001
time: 18:56
| |
|
|
I agree... "intellectual" should have absolutely nothing to do with whether someone has a backbone or not. Or is brave or not. Or has a moral center or not.
But it's a term (along with others like professorial) that's been loaded to insinuate that those areas are deficient in those who appear intelligent, or even just use big words. When someone says "intellectual" in regards to a politician, they are generally making those insinuations without actually addressing the nature of the person in question in those specific regards. Which is of course... dumb.
|
|
| |
|
|
Emperor
|
Feb 2000
time: 03:56
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Traianvs
I beg to disagree. Being intellectual often is part of leadership. A leader can be intellectual and be able to make decisions simultaneously, especially if those decisions are unpopular (they're intellectuals with a lot of factual knowledge remember ).
|
first you agree that being intellectual is not a necessary part of leadership.
second, if we agree on a set of leaders to check up on, we can try and see how many of them were really intellectuals.
quote:
If a leader merely needs enough intellectual capacity to understand the right choices, then there are many potential presidents walking around the globe... |
a) no ****. that's why proven intellect is never the pre-requisite for leadership in a democracy.
b) intellect is not all it takes. it's just the smaller of a whole range of qualities - topping all, are boldness and political know-how.
quote:
I want the best of the ****ing best out there. People with enough background, intellectual and experiencewise, so they can make the best decisions.
|
there's a reason why bosses and managers are not always the most proficient or intellectual in their organization.
a leader doesn't need to hold all the answers. just to know how to ask the right questions, and then to reach a decision.
quote:
If you're not intelligent enough yourself you have to rely too much on advisors who can manipulate you and who can have their own agenda, cf. G. Bush Jr. who surrounded himself with a truckload of neocons who succesfully hacked his rule. |
Hey the neocon advisors you hate so much, are actually very intellectual people, many of whom could wipe the floor with you, in an argument.
You disagree with them, but you can't deny that neo-conservatism is an intellectual faction. You merely suggest that any one of them should have been the president, instead of Bush.
What's the difference if the agenda is that of the advisor, or the president? What you dislike is the agenda itself.
Your implicit statement is that the leader needs to be an intellectual you agree with. There are plenty of intellectuals that you don't agree with, and you'd probably object them being the president because of their views.
That's why I think it is more important that a leader has enough common sense, and enough critical thinking to challenge different advisors. This is a necessary pre-requisite for a good leader.
Many people who aren't intellectuals have common sense and critical thinking, even when they haven't tackled foreign affairs issues, or don't have an expertise in economy.
Many people who are intellectuals have poor judgement in areas outside their expertise, and their wealth of knowledge does not promise decision making abilities in issues of life-and-death.
|
|
| |
|
|
Emperor
|
Feb 2000
time: 03:56
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Traianvs
think about the wonderful idealists that dreamt of a democratic Iraq. think of the excellent Republicans who only rely on casino-capitalism.
Your words are hollow. |
democratic iraq was thought up by intellectuals.
capitalism is an intellectual rage.
you're repeating my point without realising.
|
|
| |
|
|
Emperor
orangesoda
|
Nov 2001
time: 18:56
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
You disagree with them, but you can't deny that neo-conservatism is an intellectual faction. You merely suggest that any one of them should have been the president, instead of Bush.
What's the difference if the agenda is that of the advisor, or the president? What you dislike is the agenda itself. |
Actually Bush is an "intellectual" as far as his background is concerned. He just avoids playing the part (I suspect intentionally, but it's possible his mental faculties have just degraded as well... he clearly was much more well spoken and intelligent sounding earlier in his career)... which may be the best example of how loaded the term has become in our society. It's better to appear a fool than to appear to know your stuff. And that's sad.
|
|
| |
|
|
Traianvs
|
|
|
|
King
Belgium, land of plenty (corruption)
|
Jan 2000
time: 02:56
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
first you agree that being intellectual is not a necessary part of leadership.
second, if we agree on a set of leaders to check up on, we can try and see how many of them were really intellectuals.
|
I never said intellectualism is an absolute necessity. I only think it helps on many occasions. I never claimed otherwise I think.
quote:
a) no ****. that's why proven intellect is never the pre-requisite for leadership in a democracy.
b) intellect is not all it takes. it's just the smaller of a whole range of qualities - topping all, are boldness and political know-how.
|
I was referring to the fact that there are many people with minimum intellectual capacities, but with plenty of other skills. I'd prefer someone with the necessary skills, including an intellectual (=rational scientific) mind, over someone with good motivation skills, organising skills etc but without an intellectual attitude. But okay that's just my personal opinion. If you like the mavericks who use their gut feeling then that's yours
quote:
there's a reason why bosses and managers are not always the most proficient or intellectual in their organization.
a leader doesn't need to hold all the answers. just to know how to ask the right questions, and then to reach a decision.
|
Yeah I agree. But having a wide background helps in making those decisions. It's not a coincidence that many of the managers I know have more up their sleeve than some management skills. I think it's all interrelated. You can't manage something you know little about. Again, my personal opinion.
quote:
Hey the neocon advisors you hate so much, are actually very intellectual people, many of whom could wipe the floor with you, in an argument.
|
I never said they weren't intelligent. Actually I'm not sure they'd wipe the floor with me . If it were about Iraq and so on, I disagree. They have overlooked so many things, neglected so much... I think guys like Wolfowitz, despite their enormous intellect, didn't have enough knowledge to see what lied ahead in Iraq. But that's another discussion
[/QUOTE]
|
|
| |
|
|
Emperor
|
Feb 2000
time: 03:56
| |
|
|
My point isn't that I prefer a leader to be a numb skull idiot with a reliable sixth sense.
I also agree with the gist of the article that disliking intellectuals for their "long words" is not a smart thing to do.
However, I have a problem wi | |
|
|
