I’ve said for a long time that there are two types of people. The first looks at something they don’t know how to do and thinks “That’s hard. If it wasn’t, I’d know how to do it”, and the other type looks at something that they don’t know how to do and (somehow) thinks “That must be easy. Look at fools who do it all day every day”.
I think your type twos are your average GOPtard. “I could totally do that job if I wanted to. I just don’t want to. But there’s this guy just like me (sure he’s a millionaire and went to an Ivy League school, but he says “y’all”) and since he’s like me I’m sure he’ll do it right. Just like I would if I wanted the job. Which I don’t. Even though I could totally do it.”
Dawkins is engaging in intellectual masturbation that is easily debunked. For instance, anyone can easily check that George W. Bush got his undergraduate degree from Yale and graduate degree from Harvard, so he’s almost as educated as you can get. We can as easily check the education of other prominent Republicans:
Mitt Romney: Undergrad at Stanford and BYU, Law School at Harvard
Eric Cantor: Undergrad at George Washington, Law School at William & Mary, graduate at Columbia
John Boehner: Undergrad at Xavier
Mitch McConnell: Undergrad at the University of Kentucky
Michelle Bachmann: Undergrad Winona State University, Law School at Oral Roberts and William & Mary
Newt Gingrich: Undergrad at Emory, graduate at Tulane
Tim Pawlenty: Undergraduate at the University of Minnesota, Law School at same
And Rick Perry graduated from Texas A&M, which is perhaps not the Ivy League but is hardly Western Podunk U. either. No leading Republican politician is uneducated and some have attended the country’s highest-ranked schools. But of course the nice thing about being Richard Dawkins is that you have a large audience that will believe whatever you say even when it’s wrong.
You’re mistaking education for intellect. While it can be an indicator, it isn’t a guarantee. For example, Rick Perry’s college transcript isn’t impressive in the least.
But I don’t think that’s what Dawkins is referring to. It strikes me that he was attacking an anti-intellectual strain in populist conservatism that the Republican Party exploits by embracing indefensible but popular positions like anti-evolutionism, climate change denial, etc.
All the politicians you cite have endorsed these positions to some degree or another. Which means they are either deluded, stupid, or liars.
I think **Princhester **has stated the point far better than Dawkins. It’s not that Republican politician’s aren’t often educated; it’s that there is a disheartening spirit of anti-intellectualism that too often comes from the Republican wing. I remember watching Bill Maher recently, and he featured a Republican primary race where one contestant accused the other of believing in evolution, and the other ran an ad hotly denying such a horrible accusation! For fuck’s sake, this is the 21st century; such an exchange is embarrassing. On the Republican side, I see anti-intellectualism in the dismissal of science (evolution, global warming), in ignoring any advice from experts in, for example, economics (David Brooks writesthat “the GOP has separated itself from…the normal rules of evidence”), the sneering at ‘elites’ and ‘intellectuals’, etc.
It may well be that Republican candidates don’t believe what they say, but too often they are willing to pander to the most ignorant and know-nothing among us.
But that is really the point, isn’t it? You have wealthy, well educated Republicans deliberately spouting falsehoods and pretending to be “just folks”. Aside from Bachman, and maybe Perry, I don’t think that any of the Republican candidates really don’t accept evolution. If they do, it just shows that you can be well educated and still me a moron.
It’s exactly the same way with Democrats when the topic of abortion comes up and they’re asked when human life begins. That is, they’ll provide a scientifically inaccurate answer. It’s called pandering to one’s base. Both parties are anti-intellectualism when it suits them. No reason to pretend otherwise.
Bull and shit. There IS no definitive point at which “life begins”. That’s why abortion is legal on a sliding scale, except in the case of continuation of the pregnancy posing a threat to the mother’s health or life.
First, you’re wrong; Democrats are not monolithic when it comes to abortion, or really anything else for that matter. Second, what’s the scientifically accurate answer on when life begins? Third, does a tu quoque ever really advance a discussion?
Squeaking out an undergrad degree (Perry had a GPA ins the twos) from a pretty run of the mill school is, frankly, not much evidence of intellect.
Perry’s educational acheivements are inferior to my own and I am hopelessly unqualified, and far too stupid, to run a country.
Agreed, though, that Dawkins is talkling about anti-intellectualism. He’s not saying Perry is a fool because he has actual evidence Perry has a low IQ; he’s saying Perry is a fool because Perry acts like a fool and believes foolish things.
Famed storyteller Garrison Keillor, who was awarded the 2007 John Steinbeck Award, given to artists who capture “the spirit of Steinbeck’s empathy, commitment to democratic values, and belief in the dignity of the common man,” gave a useful description of the modern GOP:
[QUOTE=Garrison Keillor]
The party of Lincoln and Liberty has been transmogrified into the party of hairy-backed swamp developers and corporate shills, faith-based economists, fundamentalist bullies with Bibles, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, misanthropic frat boys, shrieking midgets of AM radio, tax cheats, nihilists in golf pants, brown-shirts in pinstripes, sweatshop tycoons, hacks, fakirs, aggressive dorks, Lamborghini libertarians, people who believe Neil Armstrong’s moonwalk was filmed in Roswell, New Mexico, little honkers out to diminish the rest of us, Newt’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch President, a dull and rigid man suspicious of the free flow of information and of secular institutions, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk.
[/QUOTE]
Most people are aware of “gentlemens C’” that are awarded to the children of the rich and powerful families. Bush was a recipient of that while he partied his way through the great schools of the east. You don’t fuck with families that make huge bequests and provide the commencement speakers.
Perry went to a weak school and got poor grades.
Bachmann went to right wing academies than have little respect. They are training grounds for the religious right.
Palin went to weak schools with the intention of becoming a sportscaster.
But these figure heads of the party may not be reflective of the people then pander to. They have to espouse some terrible beliefs to get in power. The collection of gun nuts, anti abortionist , bigoted against blacks and non christians, gay hating, and general purpose haters require politicians pretending to believe their insanity in order to get elected.
I don’t either party has a monopoly on irrationalism. Since President Obama is running for the nomination unopposed he doesn’t have to humor the Greens and such, but keep in mind that it was Greens who started using the word Skeptic as an insult.
I see too many arguments being made in the public debates that wouldn’t survive a half an hour with a spreadsheet. The trouble is that only a few percent of the electorate understand such arguments. The result is that anyone serious about getting elected ends up humoring morons or at least avoiding positions that will offend the morons.
No you don’t. Ted had a friend take a Spanish exam for him, but no money was exchanged. Both were expelled but allowed to be readmitted with good behavior.
This is so true. There is no way we are going to have enough wind energy any time soon to replace carbon-based fuels, there is no way domestic drilling is going to make a significant impact on our imports, there is no way to address the deficit without raising taxes, vaccines don’t cause autism, and on and on. Shouldn’t the media be doing this sort of thing? A few pie charts would be a good start. Tea partiers think taxes have gone up under Obama. We can disagree on policy, but we need people to grasp the facts.