Comments on: 2. Anti-Intellectualism Hurts Your Wallet

By: Irina

Irina — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:18:08 +0000

Looking forward to read it!

By: Susan Tiner

Susan Tiner — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:53:26 +0000

You make some interesting points Irina. But I don’t think you can cleanly separate the educated class from the power elite in the US.

I will be writing more about this in future posts.

By: Irina

Irina — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 11:19:31 +0000

Sorry, I haven’t read all the comments, just a post.
It is a great article! And the thing I wanted to point out that America is not alone in this situation. Anti-intellectualism has many faces all over the world now and we see some examples in history. The decorations change and sometimes it is hard to see that these things are actually alike.
For example the Great October Revolution in 1917 was a victory of anti-intellectualism in one country. You all know what was after: the destruction of the educated, cultured and noble class. A great wound to the genetics of the country. There were another disasters like First and Second World Wars that costed tens of millions of people (this data is still unknown; all the cows, horses and tanks lost were counted very carefully, but not the people – the official documents and “the Big Soviet Encyclopaedia” (Russian Britannika) says smth like the war costed our people too much lives) – well, anti-intellectualism really dehumanizes. And the people of intellectual professions were the people of the second sort. Soviet schoolers had to learn rhymes about the awful city Birmingham in awful Alabama where you have less rights if you have black skin, but the workers were earning more than the engineers… they had more vacations, preferences in distribution of some goods and etc. It was their gegemony. Do you see much difference with the Afro-Americans? I do not.

Imho, it is a great mistake to associate humanity, intellectualism and culture with the current elites. Being in a political elite and having the proper tie only means being a part of the circle, having the minimum of education required there and a passion for power. They have nothing in common with the real intellectuals. I feel sorry for them, for the real elite. They are being compromised by the ruling class using their name – intellectuals. And anti-intellectualism trying to fight the ruling class (if it really does) hits another target.

By: Susan Tiner

Susan Tiner — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:35:46 +0000

Jason,
I agree that it’s hard to define exactly who is populist or anti-intellectual. Hofstadter specifically lumps together groups of intellectuals that disagree, e.g., Mencken and W.F. Buckley are still intellectuals even though they mercilessly criticized professors.

Your New Hours link was actually to the 01/15 show, here’s the link for Friday Jan 22:
http://video.pbs.org/video/1393398091

By: Jason B.

Jason B. — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:12:42 +0000

It’s interesting to me that the very definition of populism is under debate. I would argue that populism is any movement from “the masses” in reaction to the current governing class. Education, wealth, etc. is irrelevant. Only that regular citizens are displeased with those in power.

To my thinking, it was a wave of populism that got Barack Obama elected and it is a different wave of populism that is rising against his leadership. The first was a reaction to the decidedly anti-intellectual Bush and the second is a reaction to Obama’s intellectual (if not inspirational) style of governing.

Check out the debate on this very topic between Shields and Brooks on the News Hour from yesterday:

http://video.pbs.org/video/1387129234/chapter/8/

By: Susan Tiner

Susan Tiner — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 21:25:49 +0000

@Little House, yes, per my response to @abdpbt and @Jason B, Brooks is describing the American upper class and probably to some extent the American upper-middle-class. This class used to consist mainly of old money WASP elites, but is now comprised of persons with a baccalaureate degree or higher (approximately 27% of US population) from more varied socioeconomic backgrounds, e.g., Jewish middle class, etc. The upper class is now a more diverse group and educational achievement matters more to this group than factors like club membership. Because of the emphasis on education, Brooks coined the term “educated class” to distinguish them from the older term “privileged elite” as the older term indicated inclusion solely based on your family background and connections. These days your family background and connections still help, but aren’t the deciding factor. You have to achieve academically and with rigorous distinction. For example, to get into Harvard now your SAT scores have to be way higher than they needed to be in the 1950s.

By: Little House

Little House — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 21:08:45 +0000

I don’t even know where to begin. This is an intriguing idea – Anti-Intellectualism, but I don’t know who exactly this is trying to define. Is Brooks trying to describe a very specific group of people? I’m not so sure that this would define everyone in the middle- to upper-classes. Surely there are many people who are intellectuals that belong to these classes. I’ll check out your links to better understand this term. Thanks for the thought provoking post!

By: Susan Tiner

Susan Tiner — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:24:46 +0000

@Len, I understand that there is controversy regarding the science supporting climate change, but words like “fraud” and “sham” and links to one-sided politically motivated pieces do not make your case in my opinion. If you think they do make your case, then we must disagree regarding what it means to engage in a formal debate.

By: Dollars And Nonsense » Blog Archive » Anti-Intellectualism Hurts Your Wallet at Brain Dead Simple …

Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:15:26 +0000

[...] Anti-Intellectualism Hurts your Wallet [...]

By: Len Penzo

Len Penzo — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 03:10:14 +0000

Actually, I am quite certain that I am in the majority when it comes to ALL scientists (not just those in academia who are writing the majority of the papers) who believe global warming is a cyclical event, completely unrelated to what man does.

The “global warming” crowd, which changed the term to “climate change” after it was conclusively shown by “the uneducated class” that world temps fell over the past 10 years despite rising CO2 levels.

I will argue that this movement has been exposed as being “a sham” with the stunning news that scientists from that side actually manipulated data and tried to hide the truth to push their agenda. True scientists with any sense of ethics and decency would never do such a thing – they would let the data speak for itself.

As you know, Susan, I repeatedly make the case on y blog that global warming is a political movement – it has nothing to do with science.

The entire global warming theory is based on a scientifically flimsy house of cards; it depends upon highly dubious models and wild assumptions.

For those that are interested, here’s a great primer from the UK’s Daily Express on 101 reasons why climate change is natural and not man-made:

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

Best,

Len