As I’ve said beore, actually being an intellectual isn’t relevant to the consideration. Anti-intellectualism in politics is a method used to communicate to the public that your opponent can’t be relied on to have common sense. Whether or not your or your opponent are actually intellectual or not doesn’t matter.
I noticed, however, that he suddenly learned how to pronounce “nuclear” right after the second election was decided in his favor. To me, that smacks of purposeful anti-intellectualism. He knew what the SAE pronunciation was all along, but was forcing himself to pronounce it differently to contrast himself with the “east coast lib’rul elite”.
I tend to agree. As ascenray so correctly pertinently suggested, the word here is quite likely populism, so Bush needn’t be consistent in his disdain for “intellectuals” with is friends (if he truly harbors such disdain, or at least behaves as if he does for public consumption). He just needs to tar his opponents with the epithet, and the rest takes care of itself. In that case, even if Condi could, she would never, as a Friend of Dubya, “hoodwink the ordinary people…the ‘salt of the earth’ and the source of virtue”, display a “lack of patriotism or moral clarity”, nor “[hold] dangerously foreign, possibly subversive, opinions.” She’s ostensibly unwaiveringly loyal to God, Country, and her President. Nothing morally-relativist or “intellectual” about that.
Perhaps.
That’s just silly. You’ve seen Condi being interviewed and her job is to advocate a policy put forward by the administration. Why in the world would you expect to have witnessed her being “reflective” while doing that? It’s not like CSPAN is going to show her as she does her reading or reaseach in her study somewhere. Just because you don’t like the conclusions that ensue from someone’s analysis doesn’t mean that there has been no analysis.
It’s not unreasonable to fault Condi for lack of expertise on M.E. issues. To be sure, she cut her teeth during the Cold War, and her academic background is focused on Russia, not the M.E. But what “intellectual” is fully versed in all subjects? Her academic background speaks for itself-- one doesn’t accomplish what she has and gain the respect that she has (even from her political detractors) without a great deal of curiosity, ananlysis, and reflection.
I call 'em as I see 'em. My post is my cite. I’m the world’s foremost expert on what I think of people and the impression they’ve made on me.
Which doesn’t mean you haven’t made a good point.
So if I perceive your argument as invalid, that’s more important than whether it really is?
Unlike you, I know where the Pit is.
The BBC disagrees with you: “Ms Rice’s intellectual brilliance is undisputed”.
Yes, well I left a lovely post in there for you. Go find it.
Well, if I just disputed it, then the BBC would be wrong by definition, wouldn’t it? But I didn’ dispute it. I merely suspended judgment on the question of Condi’s intellectual bent. Does she strike me as someone who is competent and well educated? Yes, certainly more than Bush does. Do I know anything more? No. I’ve never spoken to the woman and her scripted speeches to the press don’t tell me anything except she enunciates.
A fair question would be, “is the public’s perception of Michael Jackson’s guilt more important than the actual evidence that he’s guilty.” At that point we’d have to ask, “Well, what do you mean by ‘more important.’?” In terms of his career, absolutely. It’s over. In terms of legalities, no. He walks. So it is with Maegelen’s point. The context of his statement was that, in terms of political strategy, Condi’s public support would depend more on her public persona than her actual personality. In terms of her actual ability to do her job well, her actual skills would be more important.
Again, if you have a criticism, just make it. It would be ever so helpful if you could tell us what you actually think about something, instead of engaging in some twisted socractic method, leading us to wonder what exactly you are asking and why.
Yes, you did indeed say that it was your impression, not a fact, so I’ll retract my “that’s silly” statement. We have no real way of objectively verifying that Rice is an intellectual, however I think the reasonable assumption, based on observations by people who actually know her, is that she is.
I’m not your bag boy. I don’t clean up your vomit on aisle nine.
You know, of course, how silly it looks for you to dance like a cat in a gravel pit on a hot day in Georgia just to “suspend judgment” on the “intellectual bent” of an accomplished and award winning professor of political science — in fact, a distinguished Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies — at Stanford University. I’d be interested to know, if you ever bother to read her curriculum vitae, if she’s somehow not an intellectual, then what does that make you and me?
I know, of course, what my impressions are based on what I’ve seen. Or what my impressions aren’t based on what I haven’t seen. But if it makes you feel better, I withdraw my comment. She strikes me as the most brilliant person I’ve ever seen on television. The way she scowls and reads scripted statements off the teleprompter is obviously genius. Now, perhaps, we can get back to whatever it is we were supposed to be talking about.
Not necessarily. However it’s not unreasonable that someone who thinks in that manner would trust people who can spot the answer by intuition over those who study a situation before deciding.
I, for example, thought GW was as phony as a $3 bill the first time I saw him speak as Texas Governor. However, if he had since demonstrated competence I would have changed that opinion. He hasn’t and I haven’t.
I’ve never personally felt any need to doubt Condi’s intellect or intellectualism. She’s certainly the administration’s resident Brainiac (Wolfowitz should also get a nod, and I’m sure there are others).
She does seem to to be extremely loyal, both to Bush and the putative Bush Doctrine. In return for loyalty, Bush seems able to overlook virtually anything. I suppose if Bush really were an “anti-intellectual” (have we finally decided what that means yet?), it still would be no mystery why he surrounds himself with who he does.
I think “phony” is a much better descriptor of Bush than “anti-intellectual”.
That’s the fundamental requirement: Loyalty. Whatever her ability to see all sides of an issue, an ability which is not in evidence, she has done whatever she’s been told to do and told her “husband” whatever he wanted her to tell him.
Bush has surrounded himself with unreconstructed Cold Warriors, and she’s just one of them. That mindset, always needing an enemy, always ascribing every problem to that enemy, and acting only in ways that will eliminate that enemy, is itself *inherently * anti-intellectual, despite any superficial articulateness its proponents use to promote it.
It doesn’t matter what your IQ is or what degrees you hold. If you start with an ideology and try to make the facts fit into it, you’re anti-intellectual. If you lack the curiosity to find out the facts and the contexts they fit in before acting on them, you’re anti-intellectual. If you lack the honesty to tell yourself at every juncture that you just might be wrong, you’re anti-intellectual. Hell yes, Bush is anti-intellectual, and by every appearance but her ability to speak grammatically, so is Rice.
Bitch needs a slapping around. Lockstep, songsheet, pretty little phrases in a row.
Coo coo, c’choo.
???
The Eggman? The Walrus? No?
Well then, what Elvis writ.
Well, I did recognize that your were uttering some nonsense syllables from a Beatles song, but the actual relation of those words to the quoted material was ambiguous, to say the least. Were you saying I’m sexist because I doubted Condi, and making a strawman suggestion that I covertly want her slapped around? Or are you just saying you want to smack her, and then degenerating into scat. What would be helpful would be, if people tried less to be clever and more to be clear. I think ______. You know. Instead of the suggestive questions and incongruous jokes inside to oneself only.