Is George W. Bush anti-intellectual?

[Homebrew]

@Walloon

Those are Bush misspeaking and making malopropisms. They are not quotations of Bush expressing disdain for education, intellect, or intellectuals.

“I’m also not very analytical. You know I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things.” —aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

If that ain’t anti-intellectual, then what more do you want?

[plnnr]

“I don’t do nuance.”

[Genghis_Bob]

Didn’t Bush just come out in favor of including Intelligent Design in school science curricula? If so, wouldn’t this qualify as somewhat anti-intellectual?

[Liberal]

Why’s that? Many proponents of ID are intellectuals themselves. Intellectualism has produced some really quack junk over the years — from existentialism to new age spirituality.

[Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew]

@black455

@Renob

…His complete lack of knowlege about hunting, even though he tries to pose as a hunter…

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.

Anyway, isn’t pretending to be more of a “regular guy” than you really are the opposite of snobbery?

[Loopydude]

Awright:

My Webster’s says “intellectual” is an adjective, basically meaning rational, intelligent, and appealing to or engaging the intellect. “Intellectual” the noun is “an intellectual person”. (I shorten, obviously).

It really seems to me like people in this thread are claimng that Bush, rather than disliking “intellectuals”, according to any meaningful definition of the word, really dislikes dilettantes, poseurs, snobs, or, perhaps most applicably, pedantics. That what we’re talking about here?

Well…Bush couldn’t affect pedantry if he tried, so I’ll give him that; but he’s one Hell of a dilettante in my book, being born on third with the attitude of a guy who hit a triple; and a disdain for book-learned academics for their sheer learnedness seems like a kind of redneck elitism, a bizarre form of snobbery glorifying a practice of one-downsmanship, encouraging a race to the intellectual bottom for the purpose of demonstrating “genuinness”.

Am I too far off, here?

[David_Simmons]

This editorial piece by Jonathan Chait abouthow GW decides seems to indicate that he jumps to a conclusion based on ‘gut feelings.’ I think is how GW himself describes his mode of operation and indicates that he might not have high regard for reason and evidence.

Jonathan Chait is a senior editor for The New Republic and is an admitted Bush hater, but the question isn’t that, but whether or not the incidents recounted by him are accurate and what they mean.

To me they mean that Bush disdains thinking something through and prefers to decide on the basis of first impressions.

Someone using that method probably doesn’t have a lot of respect for intellectual activity as a means of problem solving.

[John_Mace]

@Loopydude

Well…Bush couldn’t affect pedantry if he tried, so I’ll give him that; but he’s one Hell of a dilettante in my book, being born on third with the attitude of a guy who hit a triple; and a disdain for book-learned academics for their sheer learnedness seems like a kind of redneck elitism, a bizarre form of snobbery glorifying a practice of one-downsmanship, encouraging a race to the intellectual bottom for the purpose of demonstrating “genuinness”.

Pretty close. To make it more concrete, if Bush posted here on the SDMB, he’d probably start his posts with something like “Awright”.

[Acsenray]

WordNet offers this definition –

smug and ignorant and indifferent or hostile to artistic and cultural values
Synonym: philistine

Wikipedia offers this –

Populism
Populism is another major strain of anti-intellectualism. Intellectuals are presented as elitists and tricksters whose knowledge and rhetorical skills are feared, not because they are useless, but because they may be used to hoodwink the ordinary people, who are conceived of as the “salt of the earth” and the source of virtue. In a similar vein, the curiosity and objectivity of intellectuals about foreign countries and beliefs is portrayed by populists as a lack of patriotism or moral clarity, and intellectuals are often held to be suspect of holding dangerously foreign, possibly subversive, opinions.

[Liberal]

Intellectualism isn’t limited to the left. Conservatives do it too.

[Loopydude]

@John Mace

Pretty close. To make it more concrete, if Bush posted here on the SDMB, he’d probably start his posts with something like “Awright”.

Ideed, veritably, and forsooth, thou hast nailed my posterior.

[tnetennba]

@Liberal

Intellectualism isn’t limited to the left. Conservatives do it too.

Well, you can’t argue with a URL.

[Loopydude]

@David Simmons

To me they mean that Bush disdains thinking something through and prefers to decide on the basis of first impressions.

Someone using that method probably doesn’t have a lot of respect for intellectual activity as a means of problem solving.

So, most charitably, we could say he prefers intuition to intellect, and hence, those who rely upon the latter lack worth in his eyes?

[Liberal]

@cricetus

Well, you can’t argue with a URL.

Oh, I’m confident you’ll find a way.

[Liberal]

@Loopydude

So, most charitably, we could say he prefers intuition to intellect, and hence, those who rely upon the latter lack worth in his eyes?

Would you say that his Secretary of State is short on intellect? Would you say that she lacks worth in his eyes?

[Homebrew]

@Liberal

Would you say that his Secretary of State is short on intellect? Would you say that she lacks worth in his eyes?

Reckon she wears a t-shirt with a “T” on it?

/south park reference

[Maeglin]

@Liberal

Would you say that his Secretary of State is short on intellect? Would you say that she lacks worth in his eyes?

Case in point. Whether or not Rice is an intellectual is of less importance than how she is perceived.

From this article:

Like the president, she’s also fiercely loyal, forceful and driven by a deeply moral world view. “There’s a religious quality,” said one former administration official who worked closely with Rice. “When people are seen as evil or wrong, her tendency is to freeze the debate, and the analysis stops.”

[tnetennba]

It’s a trap. Liberal wants you to say she ain’t so he can call you a racist and a sexist and insinuate that all liberals are hypocrites.

Personally, Condi’s never said anything to make me think she’s intellectual. She’s smart, but smarts and intellectual aren’t the same thing. Intellectual implies “curious” and “analytical” and “reflective” and I don’t get that from anyone in the Bush camp. Which doesn’t mean they aren’t, it just means that they don’t come across that way. As has been speculated, it could be by design since they depend upon a voting base that fears and resents intellectualism.

[BobLibDem]

@acsenray

WordNet offers this definition –

smug and ignorant and indifferent or hostile to artistic and cultural values
Synonym: philistine

Wikipedia offers this –

Why does anyone give a rat’s rump what Wikipedia has? A bunch of ordinary schmucks send in contributions and they get inserted- who says the guy who sent that in knows his butt from a hole in the ground?

Populists can be intellectuals. As example I submit John Edwards.

[tnetennba]

@BobLibDem

Why does anyone give a rat’s rump what Wikipedia has? A bunch of ordinary schmucks send in contributions and they get inserted- who says the guy who sent that in knows his butt from a hole in the ground?

Populists can be intellectuals. As example I submit John Edwards.

Wikipedia has an editorial board, and people cite their sources. I can understand taking things from Wikipedia with a grain of salt, but there’s a lot of good, accurate, reliable information on it. I’ve used it quite a bit and haven’t seen any obvious errors.