Thanks, december. I think you’re still suffering from a little bit of blur between policies and consequences—for example, I doubt that any intellectual has ever gone on record as intentionally advocating that teacher training should be more ineffective—but I appreciate your trying! 
Well, gosh, CyberPundit, I’m hurt. Deeply, deeply hurt. I will try to only post things you find relevant and interesting from now on.
I hope you find this relevant and interesting:
-
You have given no useful definition of “intellectuals”. Best I can tell from this thread, you define “intellectuals” as “people with ideas who aren’t connected to corporations”. Well, gee, that’s helpful;
-
You seem to take the position that something is a victory for intellectuals if they beat corporate interests. I really enjoyed the following: “I believe it was the case particularly for the racial and sexual issues that there was at least the appearance of consensus among intellectuals.” Hmm, that’s right, it was the “consensus of intellectuals” that done won civil rights. The Freedom Riders, the lunch-counter sit-ins, and the poor people of Selma, Alabama had nothing to do with it. Not to deny MLK his rightful place, but I submit that the televised images of police dogs attacking peaceful marchers in Birmingham did a lot more to bring about the Civil Rights Act than did even the most inspiring of King’s speeches.
All in all, I have to say that I found your OP neither particularly relevant or interesting. If you define your terms, and develop some recognizable parameters of success and failure, you may be able to salvage something here. Your refusal to accept constructive criticism shows that such a result is highly unlikely.
Sua
Trying to get in a few last minute posts before leaving my leaden hell (and by extension SDMB for a while at least):
Sometimes yes.
Quite true, Paul Krugman, my favorite economist, had a disturbing opinion column on economists and analysts for hire. (I confess to reading it and then saying, heeeey, dat might be me!)
I fear this is a serious problem.
Something as of yet undefined, here or in responses is what consitutes an intellectual? Am I? I’m private sector, don’t work for think tank or academic institutions but am frequently accused of this particular crime.
Experts, again somewhat hard to define. Usually one has to be versed in the field to know one. e.g. I noted in reading today someone referred to me as an economist, a label which I would have to decline as I have but a superficial knowledge of the discipline as it applies to things which I do. I can tell, however, in large part who has a genuine knowledge of economics (greater than my own) and who probably doesn’t.
(side comment)
You’d be surprised. Too much biological illiteracy. Bloody hell, look at the race issue, an issue which could not be clearer from a genetic POV, but generates mucho smoke.
In re such support – and mind you I am very, very pro-trade, I am not sure that economists unanimity versus secular interests are not driving this change. As Kimstu has mentioned, we’ve been having a soon to be aborted conversation about this. One item I have to concede to her in this regard is that the policy choices that economists (even the Chicago school) might suggest are not those which are in fact adopted. (On the other hand, I might suggest that the free trade critics have mostly adopted a weak, economicaly speaking, position and might get farther by learning from say Krugman)
Well, there are several problems here. (a) you treat ‘intellectuals’ as a clear group – they are not I think – (b) presume the mere status of ‘expert’ or ‘intellectual’ should be reason enough -based on group solidarity?- to make ‘a united front’. I don’t see any inherent reasons for this.
What I might suggest is that at some point evidence, above all solid emperically verifiable evidence may accumulate to a point to which persons trained in rigorous analytical thinking will largely be forced to conform their POV. Providing they grapple with the evidence.
For most policy issues the following problems present themselves:
(a) definition of expert
(b) definition of ‘well-informed’
© subjectivity of much sociological/socio-economic goals
(d) lack of clarity for data for the same
I think one can see quite clearly the sorts of issues which arise when taxes or whatnot are debated. (December’s interventions (is this another Quebecism?) are a prime example of this)
I think that your initial premise suffers from the definitional problems described above. Regard december’s responses, he defines, a priori, intellectual influences as those ‘liberal’ influences he doesn’t particularly care for. Given that “intellectual” and “ivory tower” are among the right wing buzzwords in use against policies they do not like (along with ‘social engineering’ and other rather empty phrases), this is rather unsurprising. But it does illustrate the problem.
However, I believe that your actual aim is to ask if persons trained in a given area/discipline should have more influence over policy decisions? No? We might have some more debate if we defined this in terms of specialist versus democratic – pity I shall not be able to take part.
Sorry if my post came out this way; it’s not at all what I intended. First of all the original list contained several policies that I deeply favor. Second, I was including only items not supported by corporate interests.
I have the greatest respect for intellectuals. I agree with CP that " It was only in the 70’s that the neo-conservatives and other were able to begin to mount a counter-offensive." Today, there are lots of fine conservative intellectuals, such as Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Robert Novak, Joseph Farah, etc.
" Best I can tell from this thread, you define “intellectuals” as “people with ideas who aren’t connected to corporations”. "
Eh? Where the hell did you get this? I have neither stated nor implied this.
In any event the term intellectual is a fairly common word which I didn’t think needed extended defintion. I am thinking of the following kinds of people:
1)People who write editorials and op-ed columns in the major press publications as well as for opinion magazines like The New Republic,Weekly Standard etc.
2) Academics who research public policy and write in non-specialist publications like Foreign Affairs .
3) People who work and write for public-policy think-tanks like AEI,Brookings etc.
That covers the core group I am interested in though the definition of what is or isn’t an intellectual gets fuzzy for other groups.
"You seem to take the position that something is a victory for intellectuals if they beat corporate interests. "
Once again pure fantasy on your part. How is evolution or free trade an example of victory over “corporate interests”?
Why don’t you try reading what I actually say instead of indulging your imagination?
“Your refusal to accept constructive criticism shows that such a result is highly unlikely.”
And your first post was an example of “constructive criticism” according to you? Actually it was a snide and irrelevant comment which along with your later misrepresentations indicate that you aren’t interested in a serious debate here .
Kimstu’s post OTOH was a serious critique which I tried to respond to.
OK, what about this?
Seems to me that you, by citing with approval december’s comments, are distinguishing between intellectuals and corporate interests. If I was wrong, it is the fault of your words, not mine.
OK, fine. Now we know who you are talking about. But what are saying they are trying to do? Are they trying to get policies enacted? Sure - but they don’t do it themselves. They act by trying to influence politicians, interest groups, and yes, corporate interests.
Let’s take the estate tax. I don’t know where the latest iteration of the “repeal the estate tax” came from, but let’s use as an example the Cato Institute - this is something that would likely interest them.
A fellow of the Cato Institute writes an article arguing for the repeal of the estate tax. It is read by several members of Congress and/or certain large political donors who don’t want their inheritance to their kids diminished. The idea is written up as a bill and voted on by Congress. It passes.
Under your definitions, did the intellectual - the fellow at Cato - “win”? Or was it the donor or the Congressman? BTW, I sure as hell did not see a “consensus of intellectuals” on this issue - it was well split among ideological lines.
Well gosh Becky, I’m tryin’. And I can’t figure out what you are saying.
Talk about indulging your imagination instead of reading what I wrote. (And talk about misrepresentation) I think there is a serious debate to be had here, but you are not giving us enough definitions to have it. It was utterly relevant, and it wasn’t snide - if intellectuals are the people you mention, they all promote and advocate lots of positions. Sometimes they are in the minority amongst pundits, but their idea is championed by a serious politician, and it is enacted.
And sometimes, a large majority of pundits, across the political spectrum are in favor of an idea - I’m thinking of term limits in the early 90’s. However, the politicians vigorously opposed the idea, and the intellectuals lost.
Listen pal, you are the one who wrote an irretrievably vague OP. I pointed out that there was nothing to debate because it was too vague. You got offended and snotty.
Either fix the problem, or shut up. And that, my dear, is very constructive criticism.
Sua
Good question. People in power need intellectuals to contribute ideas, just as the intellectuals need people in power to implement them.
There’s a third possibility; the ideas themselves may have won. A concept discussed in one of Douglas Hofstadter’s books suggests viewing thoughts and ideas as entities which live in peoples’ minds. They can grow within a mind or reproduce by spreading to other minds. (IIRC this concept is attributed to a particular thinker, but I forget who.)
“Seems to me that you, by citing with approval december’s comments, are distinguishing between intellectuals and corporate interests. If I was wrong, it is the fault of your words, not mine.”
Um try again . That was a response to Kimstu’s post which implied that intellectuals are effective only when the are backed by corporate interests. I don’t think that’s true and December gave some counter-examples which I endorsed. If you had noted the context of the statement its meaning was quite clear. I didn’t say that influential intellectuals by definition have to be unconnected with corporate interests just that the opposite wasn’t true.
“BTW, I sure as hell did not see a “consensus of intellectuals” on this issue - it was well split among ideological lines.”
So? I never said that intellectuals are the only game in town. In fact if you read my first post I specifically state that when intellectuals are divided or battling along partisan lines it will be the underlying balance of political power which will assert itself. Even when they are relatively united that doesn’t mean that intellectuals will win every battle just that they are much more powerful.
“And I can’t figure out what you are saying.”
I guess you are the kind of person who needs everything spelt out.
In a nutshell my argument is that when intellectuals are divided they have little influence and that other political forces determine policy.
When there is something like a consensus among intellectuals across the political spectrum, intellectuals become a powerful independent force in their own right.(obviously not the only force though).
“It was utterly relevant,”
I have already explained why it wasn’t (you didn’t bother answering my point). Just read my earlier post.
To give a concrete example: if you are interested in the role that policy pundits play in trade policy in the US today it is utterly irrelevant to point out that some intellectual in the 18th century thought of free trade and therefore that intellectuals are indeed very powerful. That was, more or less , what your “constructive criticism” was.
One of the reasons I didn’t spell out the basic idea in mind-numbing detail with definitions and all is this is a fairly familiar debate and I assumed that enough of you had read or thought about it some time.
The basic issue is the same as this very famous quote by Keynes:
" The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who belive themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few yeasr back… [S]oon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil."
I agree in part with Keynes and disagree in part but I hardly think his idea or mine are either particulalry vague or difficult to grasp.
I had this same discussion with a friend of mine a few weeks back and he had no problem understanding what I meant.
CP: That was a response to Kimstu’s post which implied that intellectuals are effective only when the are backed by corporate interests.
Whoa whoa whoa, I have to step in here to correct a misinterpretation. I didn’t imply that “intellectuals are effective only when backed by corporate interests”, and I don’t believe that it’s true. What I said was that your particular examples really didn’t indicate anything more than that “intellectuals can be effective when backed, or at least not opposed, by powerful interests.” I was drawing a distinction between the point you were trying to make and the point that I think your evidence supported.
Kimstu,
OK. Both December(I think) and I thought there was a sub-text in your post which apparently wasn’t there.
December,
BTW about ideas being independent entities that is a suggestion by Richard Dawkins the evolution writer in his famous book “The Selfish Gene”. There is even a fledgeling field of study called memetics devoted to it.