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. 
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.)
I don’t think Bush is anti-intellectual as much as he’s anti-anything-that-disagrees-with-him.
Are you saying: Is Bush Dumb?
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?
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.
No. Definitely not. I would be very disappointed if that’s what this thread devolved into.
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.
Yeah, them smart people whut can read and post to message boards and such should be tarred and feathered!
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
There is nothing more intellectual than snowboarding 
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.
No, snowboarding is effete. It’s the house in Sun Valley that’s intellectual.
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.