# 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:** 3
**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, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/41 "2005-08-04T20:02:42Z")
> [@Rashak Mani](#): > > That Bush is anti-intellectual is a given… Damnit, **RM** , you owe me another irony meter!!! Would you quit breaking mine??? ---
**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, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/42 "2005-08-04T20:06:07Z")
Something of a hijack, but can a female politician be labelled as “effete”? If not, is this a political advantage over male politicians? (Sorry to post so much in this thread. I’m going to shut my big fat mouth after this and hope for some good replies.) ---
**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, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/43 "2005-08-04T20:15:07Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Damnit, **RM** , you owe me another irony meter!!! Would you quit breaking mine??? So sorry 🙂 As for Condi Rice… good point… but she doesn’t seem like an intellectual nor speak like one… and in politics appearances are everything. ---
**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, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/44 "2005-08-04T20:15:38Z")
> [@boret](#): > > 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? > [@acsenray](#): > > I don’t buy these definitions… Acsenray, you’re the OP…feel free to use the labels; thinkers and doers if you so desire. > [@Rashak Mani](#): > > 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. Rashak, is it safe to assume you’re referring to Bush’s bumbling speech patterns in your ‘_is it an act_’ query? I’m not insinuating anything about Bush, but there are quite a few intelligent (dare I say, intellectual) people who have a difficult time getting their verbal points across (especially in public). (DanBlather’s Wm F. Buckley example to name just one). ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/45 "2005-08-04T20:27:40Z")
> [@boret](#): > > Strictly speaking, I agree with you. > > The US has always had a strong streak of anti-intellectualism. But if I’m not mistaken, this manifested itself more along the lines of “rugged individualism” and “common sense”. Someone like Thomas Edison (or pick your own example). > > But now, I see it as increasingly degenerating into “anti-fact”. Or maybe degenerating is the wrong word, and it’s a separate, unrelated strain of thought? I don’t know. > > Is it unfair to also describe George Bush as anti-fact? IMO, he is. Does it follow naturally from his anti-intellectual tendencies? > > Intellectuals can also be unreasonable, as you say, but I’d like to hear your argument as to how that unreasonableness is the equivalent of _anti_-fact. That’s not my argument. I don’t see why the meaning of the word should be changed to suit Bush. If he is indeed “anti-fact”, then don’t warp “anti-intellectual” just to fit him in. Hell, he himself has already ruined enough words and skewed their meanings. Like “freedom”, for example. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/46 "2005-08-04T20:30:04Z")
> [@boret](#): > > Something of a hijack, but can a female politician be labelled as “effete”? > > If not, is this a political advantage over male politicians? > > (Sorry to post so much in this thread. I’m going to shut my big fat mouth after this and hope for some good replies.) When used in the context of intellectuals and academia, “effete” doesn’t usually mean effeminate. It means decadent or self-indulgent. ---
**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, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/47 "2005-08-04T20:41:09Z")
> [@JohnBckWLD](#): > > Rashak, is it safe to assume you’re referring to Bush’s bumbling speech patterns in your ‘_is it an act_’ query? I’m not insinuating anything about Bush, but there are quite a few intelligent (dare I say, intellectual) people who have a difficult time getting their verbal points across (especially in public). (DanBlather’s Wm F. Buckley example to name just one). Actually his bad speaking is quite secondary to me… its his tendency to put things in black and white, his repeating of the same “mantras” and ideas, and his excessive religious convictions. He thinks… and afterwards speaks like a simpleton IMO. He does have a good feeling for politics and getting people to trust him… ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/48 "2005-08-04T20:46:19Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > 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. This is such an odd statement. Rice spent most of her adult life in academia. She started “doing stuff in the real world” when she was tapped by the first Bush administration. She returned to the academy afterwards, and was a professor and academic bureaucrat for eight years before returning to politics. One of the biggest criticisms of her selection for Secretary of State is that she had no experience whatsoever managing an institution the size of the State Department, and that her experience, aside from an advisory capacity, was extremely academic. Her intellectualism, which I respect immensely despite personal disagreement, has been slickly repackaged by the administration. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/49 "2005-08-04T20:47:34Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > When used in the context of intellectuals and academia, “effete” doesn’t usually mean effeminate. It means decadent or self-indulgent. I would also add soft, weak-willed, and irresolute in this context. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/50 "2005-08-04T20:59:46Z")
> [@boret](#): > > But now, I see it as increasingly degenerating into “anti-fact”. > [@](#): > > Rob Corddry: How does one report the facts in an unbiased way when the facts themselves are biased? > > Jon Stewart: I’m sorry, Rob, did you say the facts are biased? > > Rob Corddry: That’s right Jon. From the names of our fallen soldiers to the gradual withdrawal of our allies to the growing insurgency, it’s become all too clear that facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda. Substitute Iraq for global warming, stem cells, the economy, Gitmo, Valerie Plame…well, you get the idea… ---
**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, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/51 "2005-08-04T21:15:40Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > That’s not my argument. Okay. Then I’ll retract my agreement until I can figure out what you’re saying. 🙂 > [@](#): > > I don’t see why the meaning of the word should be changed to suit Bush. If he is indeed “anti-fact”, then don’t warp “anti-intellectual” just to fit him in. I wasn’t warping, I was asking. > [@](#): > > Hell, he himself has already ruined enough words and skewed their meanings. Like “freedom”, for example. This is the kind of reply I was hoping against. I’m not really that interested in George Bush per se. I was asking in a more general sense. IMO, George Bush as POTUS isn’t the disease, he is the symptom. > [@](#): > > When used in the context of intellectuals and academia, “effete” doesn’t usually mean effeminate. It means decadent or self-indulgent. I understand that. That wasn’t the basis of my question. Sorry we’re not communicating well. I’ll give it a little time and think on what you’re saying (don’t know about you, but it’s pretty hot where I am - maybe I’m missing something, either in my own writing, or your replies). ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/52 "2005-08-05T00:24:20Z")
I am on the second page of this thread now, and I haven’t seen anyone supplying actual quotations from President Bush on education or “intellectuals”, however that’s defined. So here is one: April 2005: > [@](#): > > We like to say in our household, teaching is more than a job; it is a calling. You know what I’m talking about. You wouldn’t be sitting here if you had not heard the calling. By helping every child realize his or her potential, our teachers show their students that dreams can become reality. What a fantastic job, isn’t it, to help somebody realize a dream can become a reality. All who answer the call to teach deserve our support, our respect, and our affection. . . . > > I appreciate the fact that good teachers instill a passion for learning. You know, passion is a powerful word, and that’s why the teachers are here with us, because they have instilled a passion for somebody to go to class every day to learn. When young people become good students with big dreams, they become better citizens. Our country is better off as a result of our teachers instilling passion and hope. Now, I’d like Molly Ivins to find an actual quotation where Bush takes an “anti-intellectual” pose. Because she hasn’t. She seems to confuse being a man of the people with being an anti-intellectual, or confuses making fun of Ivy League elites as being anti-intellectual (I know enough college professors who make fun of the Ivy League too). She just does not give evidence of _how_ Bush strikes an anti-intellecutal pose, much less supply _any quote_ of Bush speaking against education and against being intelligent. I’m also amused that another here suggests that having conservative political beliefs on various topics ipso facto makes you anti-intellectual. There’s a self-fulfilling definition. ---
**Author:** ![lhovis73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecd19e/32.png) [@lhovis73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lhovis73)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/53 "2005-08-05T01:11:40Z")
I don’t think it’s possible to make the argument that anti-intellectualism can be construed as a (good, healthy) anti-elitist attitude and not a (bad, block-headed) “anti-fact” attitude. Because the moment you make reference to “those eggheads at Harvard,” treating intellectuals as a monolithic power bloc, you’re trading in gross stereotypes of what constitutes the elite. For example, the set of “intellectuals” and the set of people who tend to end up at Ivy League schools are definitely not the same. Poor George W. might have been laughed at for being a Texas hick by people who were elitists or snobs, but not necessarily intellectuals…the same sort would have laughed at Noam Chomsky for being a shabby Jew from the wrong side of the tracks in Boston, and wouldn’t automatically respect him for being an intellectual whiz kid. To take a sillier example, Queen Elizabeth’s probably the classiest person in the world…she’s the most elite of the elite, but I don’t think anyone would mistake her for being an intellectual. Point is, “elitist” often doesn’t mean “intellectual” and vice versa, and so being “anti-intellectual” can only mean “anti-elitist” if we’re conceiving of elites in a rather warped sense. All this talk about “East coast elites” (and the related creature, the “elite liberal media”) is basically a way of scoring cheap political points by posing as a man of the people (as if George W.’s upbringing was common, humble, and anything like the upbringing of most Americans…) I recognize Walloon’s point that in order to accuse George W. in particular of anti-intellectualism, we need to supply the relevant quotes…I just wanted to make a general point of how “elites” and “intellectuals” are conflated in the public imagination…the concept of “Ivy League elites” is a pretty paltry one. Just out of curiosity, I want to ask Walloon where he gets the impression that George W. is more a “man of the people” than, say, John Kerry? ---
**Author:** ![boret](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@boret](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boret)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/54 "2005-08-05T01:36:52Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > > [@boret](#): > > > > But now, I see it as increasingly degenerating into “anti-fact”. > > > [@](#): > > > > Rob Corddry: How does one report the facts in an unbiased way when the facts themselves are biased? > > > > Jon Stewart: I’m sorry, Rob, did you say the facts are biased? > > > > Rob Corddry: That’s right Jon. From the names of our fallen soldiers to the gradual withdrawal of our allies to the growing insurgency, it’s become all too clear that facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda. > > Substitute Iraq for global warming, stem cells, the economy, Gitmo, Valerie Plame…well, you get the idea… The last post on a page usually gets lost, so I’m giving **Loopydude** some props here since I missed him when I responded to **Liberal** (and for somewhat selfish reasons as well 😉 ). **Walloon** , are you serious? It would be two steps backward in this thread to prove to you that George Bush is anti-intellectual. What “quotes” from George Bush have you missed? And I don’t understand why “education” is part of your criteria. An “educated” person can be anti-intellectual. No question George Bush had the best education money could buy. > [@Walloon](#): > > I’m also amused that another here suggests that having conservative political beliefs on various topics ipso facto makes you anti-intellectual. I don’t agree with that premise. I think it would be better to address the broader premise and not cherry-pick a partisan reply as proof of anything. But as always, YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![lhovis73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecd19e/32.png) [@lhovis73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lhovis73)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/55 "2005-08-05T02:24:40Z")
> [@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. As if a boss has ever thought, “Every decision that Bob has made has been really dumb…but he makes those dumb decisions so quickly! Give that man a promotion!” :smack: Perhaps intellectuals do a lot of Hamlet-like ruminating because they’re left with the task of coming up with real solutions to solve the enormous (and enormously complex) problems that ensue when anti-intellectuals have all the power… ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/56 "2005-08-05T02:40:00Z")
> [@lhovis73](#): > > Just out of curiosity, I want to ask Walloon where he gets the impression that George W. is more a “man of the people” than, say, John Kerry? I don’t! In fact, I think Bush and Kerry are a lot more alike than either of their partisans would care to acknowledge. (I voted for Nader.) Rather, Molly Ivins, and posts #1, 3, 7, 17, 22, 32 said it. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/57 "2005-08-05T02:43:31Z")
> [@boret](#): > > What “quotes” from George Bush have you missed? Well, we’re waiting. Feel free to supply those missing quotations. ---
**Author:** ![boret](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@boret](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boret)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/58 "2005-08-05T03:37:31Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Well, we’re waiting. Feel free to supply those missing quotations. Who is “we”? :dubious: Frankly, I suspect you’re playing with me, but on the off chance you’re not, I’ll throw out a few links to get you started. Keep in mind when you read them - this isn’t the newly arrived immigrant who barely speaks English you hired to clean your office, or the college kid who comes in on weekends to make cold calls for your marketing scheme - this is the “Leader of the Free World”, the POTUS, the person who represents everyone in the US. I’ll assume you are aware of his education and family background: > **[The 40 Dumbest Things George W. Bush Ever Said](https://www.liveabout.com/dumbest-bush-quotes-of-all-time-2734076)** > > You have to appreciate a politician who makes us laugh. Revisit some of the wackiest, craziest, and just plain baffling quotes from George W. Bush. > **[The 40 Dumbest Things George W. Bush Ever Said](https://www.liveabout.com/dumbest-bush-quotes-of-all-time-2734076)** > > You have to appreciate a politician who makes us laugh. Revisit some of the wackiest, craziest, and just plain baffling quotes from George W. Bush. > **[The 40 Dumbest Things George W. Bush Ever Said](https://www.liveabout.com/dumbest-bush-quotes-of-all-time-2734076)** > > You have to appreciate a politician who makes us laugh. Revisit some of the wackiest, craziest, and just plain baffling quotes from George W. Bush. These are very vanilla, non-partisan sites ([about.com](http://about.com)). I believe I’m doing everyone here a favor by not posting the most egregious quotes - you’ll have to wade through them. There’s more than this to make a case for anti-intellectualism, but you’d have to convince me you’re for real before I make a real effort (and I’m not the OP, so it’s not really my call). ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/59 "2005-08-05T07:26:55Z")
Those are Bush misspeaking and making malopropisms. They are not quotations of Bush expressing disdain for education, intellect, or intellectuals. ---
**Author:** ![JohnBckWLD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JohnBckWLD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnBckWLD)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591/60 "2005-08-05T11:43:53Z")
> [@lhovis73](#): > > As if a boss has ever thought, “Every decision that Bob has made has been really dumb…but he makes those dumb decisions so quickly! Give that man a promotion!”… Your metaphor doesn’t counter anything I’ve stated. I was referring to elected leaders, not employees. The fictional boss in your example would be best served by advising the intellectuals and specialists on his/her staff, consider their advice and then make a decision. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-george-w-bush-anti-intellectual/315591.md?page=4)