# Is George W. Bush anti-intellectual? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 4, 2005, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591 "2005-08-04T17:33:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![boret](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@boret](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boret)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/21 "2005-08-04T18:56:18Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > This is a great thread. I also think that Bush in particular, and the Republican party in general, have become very anti-intellectual. I agree that it’s a great thread. But I’m worried that using George Bush, or Republicans in general, is an unfortunate way to frame the broader debate. Crossing my fingers that I’ll come back and see some interesting replies, but I suspect it will quickly turn into a content-free partisan pissing contest. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/22 "2005-08-04T18:59:30Z")
> [@John Corrado](#): > > American anti-intellectualism is less a direct disdain for book-learnin’ than it is a support of experience, and a disdain for those who see book-learnin’ as a substitute for experience, and a _severe_ disdain for those who see book-learnin’ as more true than experience. Maybe once, ideally. The kind of anti-intellectualism I see abroad in the land is the kind that will even reject certain people’s experience, if it’s been at all informed or guided by book-learnin’. (Example: John Kerry protested the war in Vietnam in the tones of an effete, medal-chucking Yalie longhair. Therefore he can’t possibly have served with distinction during that war.) ---
**Author:** ![black\_rabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f19dbf/32.png) [@black\_rabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/black_rabbit)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/23 "2005-08-04T19:01:16Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > …His complete lack of knowlege about hunting, even though he tries to pose as a hunter… I’m really trying not to be _so_ last year, but, uh, cite? I know that he did plenty of photo ops, and the NRA et al _accused_ him of being a poser, but on no occasion did I ever see indication that he did not, in fact, know what he was doing when he went out to blast the crap outta Bambi and Friends. ---
**Author:** ![JohnBckWLD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JohnBckWLD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnBckWLD)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/24 "2005-08-04T19:01:55Z")
In general, the voting public usually avoids putting the more ‘intellectual’ candidate into a position of power. Fair or not, intellectuals (by their very definition) ponder and mull issues put before them. Anti-intellectuals are more likely to use their convictions, consult the polls and then act. When enumerating the qualitites of a good leader, you’d be hard pressed to find many people who would mention ‘Hamlet-like pontificating’ as a valuable leadership skill. Intellectuals consult, advise, think, teach and debate; rarely do they lead. The intellectual / anti-intellectual dichotomy effects the contemporary politcal landscape in such a way that even quasi-intellectuals can be tagged as ineffectual. The labeling of liberals and progressives as ‘intellectual’ may have even contributed to their decline in influence. Even union leaders seem to have shunned their populist roots. You often see the intellectualist approach crop up in debates here at the SDMB; where even the most cut & dry, conviction-based premises are expostulated endlessly. Debating how many hues of gray lie between black and white is fine for a message board - but is impractical when it comes to decision making. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/25 "2005-08-04T19:02:39Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > I do not think anyone actually takes the positions that you have outlined regarding intellectualism, **John**. I don’t think that anyone would directly and specifically take those positions, either; but plenty of people indirectly associate themselves with those position, or are easily caricatured as being part of those positions. Jokes about government bureaucrats in the Department of Agriculture not knowing what a tractor was have existed since the 1930’s; images of steel-jawed heroes telling a scientist how his experiment is going to be a disaster and the scientist responding with, “No- my formulaes are correct! It _must_ work!” aren’t rare in '50’s and '60’s horror movies. > [@](#): > > You never saw Bill Clinton arguing that an Oxford education is more valuable than time spent in the field. Nevertheless, these views are imputed by anti-intellectuals to undermine the credibility of their opponents. Are you stating, then, that Bill Clinton was an intellectual and preferred to be thought of as such? I think Clinton did a great job of being an intellectual who acted anti-intellectual enough to balance it.) ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/26 "2005-08-04T19:06:15Z")
I don’t think Bush is anti-intellectual as much as he’s anti-anything-that-disagrees-with-him. ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/27 "2005-08-04T19:07:44Z")
Are you saying: Is Bush Dumb? ---
**Author:** ![boret](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@boret](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boret)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/28 "2005-08-04T19:17:51Z")
> [@JohnBckWLD](#): > > In general, the voting public usually avoids putting the more ‘intellectual’ candidate into a position of power. Fair or not, intellectuals (by their very definition) ponder and mull issues put before them. Anti-intellectuals are more likely to use their convictions, consult the polls and then act. When enumerating the qualitites of a good leader, you’d be hard pressed to find many people who would mention ‘Hamlet-like pontificating’ as a valuable leadership skill. Intellectuals consult, advise, think, teach and debate; rarely do they lead. > > The intellectual / anti-intellectual dichotomy effects the contemporary politcal landscape in such a way that even quasi-intellectuals can be tagged as ineffectual. The labeling of liberals and progressives as ‘intellectual’ may have even contributed to their decline in influence. Even union leaders seem to have shunned their populist roots. You often see the intellectualist approach crop up in debates here at the SDMB; where even the most cut & dry, conviction-based premises are expostulated endlessly. Debating how many hues of gray lie between black and white is fine for a message board - but is impractical when it comes to decision making. Yes. Politically speaking, the best results occur when the correct balance of _wonks_ (intellectuals) and _hacks_ (anti-intellectuals) work in perfect synergy. But how do you deliberately engineer that? _Can_ you engineer that? Is it just luck when it occurs? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/29 "2005-08-04T19:19:16Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > I don’t think Bush is anti-intellectual as much as he’s anti-anything-that-disagrees-with-him. That could be said for anyone. But I think there’s something more to it than that. Anti-intellectualism is a powerful propaganda technique, perhaps more powerful in the United States than in other countries. > [@ouryL](#): > > Are you saying: Is Bush Dumb? No. Definitely not. I would be very disappointed if that’s what this thread devolved into. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/30 "2005-08-04T19:22:28Z")
> [@boret](#): > > Yes. > > Politically speaking, the best results occur when the correct balance of _wonks_ (intellectuals) and _hacks_ (anti-intellectuals) work in perfect synergy. I don’t buy these definitions. A hack is someone who goes through the motions to get a paycheque at the end of the day. There’s no reason a hack has to be anti-intellectual. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/31 "2005-08-04T19:26:11Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > I’ve got no problems with people calling Bush anti-intellectual, as described above. I think that sort of bias is, in general, healthy. I also think it’s accurate to label Bush as such. Hell, I wish there were more folks like that in D.C. We have way too many “intellectuals” for our own good. Yeah, them smart people whut can read and post to message boards and such should be tarred and feathered! ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/32 "2005-08-04T19:33:33Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > And then there is Teresa – sorry, but any guy that marries a crazy, drunk European such as her is suspect in the eyes of many. You’re showing serious disrespect for Laura Bush’s drinking ability if you refer to Teresa as a drunk. I think Bush is smarter than he seems (since he doesn’t drag his knuckles when he walks, that’s a given), but I think anti-intellectualism is a fitting description. Intellectuals think long and hard before acting, considering the pros and cons of every potential action. With Bush it’s shoot first and ask questions later. Many of the social issues long associated with intellectuals (anti-war, affirmative action, abortion rights, anti prayer in school, anti Ten Commandment posting, gun control) are detested by Bush’s base. By playing the stooge, Bush endears himself with those who despise everything that could have come out a Harvard think tank. ---
**Author:** ![boret](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@boret](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boret)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/33 "2005-08-04T19:38:04Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > I don’t buy these definitions. A hack is someone who goes through the motions to get a paycheque at the end of the day. There’s no reason a hack has to be anti-intellectual. I know what you mean, but I’m using popular _political_ jargon. In that sense, _hack_ isn’t a pejorative, and as you say, not necessarily _anti_-intellectual. They’re just doing what they do best, _in conjunction_ with the less action prone _wonks_. ---
**Author:** ![Camus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ba8739/32.png) [@Camus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Camus)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/34 "2005-08-04T19:38:51Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > But why is this even a factor for a president? You are not going to have a beer with GWB or Bill Clinton. How is the fact that you would enjoy having a beer with him make him a better choice for president? Generally because people treat the Presidency in much the same way as they would a school board election. They would support the person who seems either most like them or the better approximation. We don’t want the best candidate for the job, or we certainly wouldn’t support the non-sensical primary process and maybe even get rid of political parties altogether. We want someone who represents us - warts, past alcoholism, and all. I think that was also why Clinton was so popular, particularly during the time of his impeachment. People saw that Clinton was being rabidly persecuted and almost became a kind of under-dog, but they also saw that he was fucked up too (just as they did in '92 with Gennifer Flowers). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/35 "2005-08-04T19:43:35Z")
And yet one of his closest advisers, Condi Rice, is the epitome of an intellectual-- down to the multilingualism and classical paino playing. Maybe the fact that she has actually done stuff in thereal world" as opposed to confining herself to academia is what makes the difference. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/36 "2005-08-04T19:47:56Z")
That Bush is anti-intellectual is a given… its a pity people aren’t discussing more if its a farse or not… part of me thinks its just overplayed for electoral purposes… but he is in fact that way. Nobody likes a smart-ass-know-it-all… even if they are better qualified. Having a lot of acquaintances that are real braniacs I know how demeaning it feels to be in the presence of people who are way way smarter than ourselves. Most americans aren’t exactly loaded with philosophical or intelectual discussions… so intellectuals won’t have a good political image anywhere… including the US. ---
**Author:** ![Taber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac91a4/32.png) [@Taber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taber)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/37 "2005-08-04T19:51:54Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > . The fact that he wind-surfs and snowboards. There is nothing more intellectual than snowboarding 😉 ---
**Author:** ![boret](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@boret](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boret)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/38 "2005-08-04T19:55:35Z")
> [@Camus](#): > > I think that was also why Clinton was so popular, particularly during the time of his impeachment. People saw that Clinton was being rabidly persecuted and almost became a kind of under-dog, but they also saw that he was fucked up too (just as they did in '92 with Gennifer Flowers). IMO, Clinton was so popular because he was capable of being both a _wonk_ and a _hack_. A magnificent _political_ animal. But perhaps his abilities in _both_ areas was also his downfall. ---
**Author:** ![Genghis\_Bob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/45deac/32.png) [@Genghis\_Bob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Genghis_Bob)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/39 "2005-08-04T19:56:44Z")
> [@Taber](#): > > There is nothing more intellectual than snowboarding 😉 No, snowboarding is _effete_. It’s the house in Sun Valley that’s intellectual. ---
**Author:** ![Camus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ba8739/32.png) [@Camus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Camus)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/40 "2005-08-04T19:57:04Z")
> [@Taber](#): > > There is nothing more intellectual than snowboarding 😉 That goes back to the effete part of an effete snob. A lot of people, rightly or wrongly, saw Kerry as being an effeminate metrosexual and this was definitely perpetuated and embelished by conservatives (i.e. the “not supposed to be serious” Fox News story about Kerry getting a spray-on tan). Besides, everybody knows that the only way an over-40 heterosexual man goes down a snow-covered mountain is with **TWO** planks of goddamn wood strapped to his feet, not one. That or face first. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591.md?page=3)